Turkic languages are spoken by some 200 million people.[1] The Turkic language with the greatest number of speakers isTurkish, spoken mainly inAnatolia and theBalkans; its native speakers account for about 38% of all Turkic speakers, followed byUzbek.[4]
Turkic languages show many similarities with theMongolic,Tungusic,Koreanic, andJaponic languages. These similarities have led some linguists (such as TurkologistTalât Tekin) to propose anAltaic language family, though this proposal is widely rejected by historical linguists.[7][8] Similarities with theUralic languages even caused these families to be regarded as one for a long time under theUral-Altaic hypothesis.[9][10][11] However, there has not been sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of either of these macrofamilies. The shared characteristics between the languages are attributed presently to extensive prehistoriclanguage contact.
December 15 is declared as "World Turkic Language Family Day" byUNESCO. On 15 December 1893, Orkhon Inscriptions, one of the first Turkic texts were decrypted.[12]
Map showing countries and autonomous subdivisions where a language belonging to the Turkic language family has official status
Turkic languages arenull-subject languages, havevowel harmony (with the notable exception ofUzbek due to strong Persian-Tajik influence),converbs, extensiveagglutination by means ofsuffixes andpostpositions, and lack ofgrammatical articles,noun classes, andgrammatical gender.Subject–object–verb word order is universal within the family. In terms of the level of vowel harmony in the Turkic language family,Tuvan is characterized as almost fully harmonic whereas Uzbek is the least harmonic or not harmonic at all. Taking into account the documented historical-linguistic development of Turkic languages overall, both inscriptional and textual, the family provides over one millennium of documented stages as well as scenarios in the linguistic evolution of vowel harmony which, in turn, demonstrates harmony evolution along a confidently definable trajectory[13] Though vowel harmony is a common characteristic of major language families spoken in Inner Eurasia (Mongolic,Tungusic,Uralic and Turkic), the type of harmony found in them differs from each other; specifically, Uralic and Turkic have a shared type of vowel harmony (calledpalatal vowel harmony) whereas Mongolic and Tungusic represent a different type.[citation needed]
The homeland of theTurkic peoples and their language is suggested to be somewhere between theTranscaspian steppe andNortheastern Asia (Manchuria),[15] with genetic evidence pointing to the region nearSouth Siberia andMongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity.[16] Similarly several linguists, includingJuha Janhunen,Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that modern-day Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language.[17] Relying onProto-Turkic lexical items about the climate, topography, flora, fauna, people's modes of subsistence, TurkologistPeter Benjamin Golden locates the Proto-Turkic Urheimat in the southern, taiga-steppe zone of theSayan-Altay region.[18]
Extensive contact took place between Proto-Turks andProto-Mongols approximately during thefirst millennium BC; the shared cultural tradition between the twoEurasian nomadic groups is called the "Turco-Mongol" tradition. The two groups shared a similar religion system,Tengrism, and there exists a multitude of evident loanwords between Turkic languages and Mongolic languages. Although the loans were bidirectional, today Turkic loanwords constitute the largest foreign component in Mongolian vocabulary.[19]
Italian historian and philologistIgor de Rachewiltz noted a significant distinction of theChuvash language from other Turkic languages. According to him, the Chuvash language does not share certain common characteristics with Turkic languages to such a degree that some scholars consider it an independent Chuvash family similar to Uralic and Turkic languages. Turkic classification of Chuvash was seen as a compromise solution for the classification purposes.[20]
Some lexical and extensive typological similarities between Turkic and the nearby Tungusic and Mongolic families, as well as theKorean andJaponic families has in more recent years been instead attributed to prehistoric contact amongst the group, sometimes referred to as theNortheast Asian sprachbund. A more recent (circa first millennium BC) contact between "core Altaic" (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic) is distinguished from this, due to the existence of definitive common words that appear to have been mostly borrowed from Turkic into Mongolic, and later from Mongolic into Tungusic, as Turkic borrowings into Mongolic significantly outnumber Mongolic borrowings into Turkic, and Turkic and Tungusic do not share any words that do not also exist in Mongolic.[citation needed]
The first established records of the Turkic languages are the eighth century ADOrkhon inscriptions by theGöktürks, recording theOld Turkic language, which were discovered in 1889 in theOrkhon Valley in Mongolia. TheCompendium of the Turkic Dialects (Divânü Lügati't-Türk), written during the 11th century AD byKaşgarlı Mahmud of theKara-Khanid Khanate, constitutes an early linguistic treatment of the family. TheCompendium is the first comprehensive dictionary of the Turkic languages and also includes the first known map of the Turkic speakers' geographical distribution. It mainly pertains to theSouthwestern branch of the family.[22]
The geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia since the Ottoman era ranges from the North-East of Siberia to Turkey in the West.[27]
For centuries, the Turkic-speaking peoples have migrated extensively and intermingled continuously, and their languages have been influenced mutually and throughcontact with the surrounding languages, especially theIranian,Slavic, and Mongolic languages.[28]
This has obscured the historical developments within each language and/or language group, and as a result, there exist several systems to classify the Turkic languages. The modern genetic classification schemes for Turkic are still largely indebted to Samoilovich (1922).[citation needed]
The Turkic languages may be divided into six branches:[29]
In this classification,Oghur Turkic is also referred to as Lir-Turkic, and the other branches are subsumed under the title of Shaz-Turkic orCommon Turkic. It is not clear when these two major types of Turkic can be assumed to have diverged.[30]
With less certainty, the Southwestern, Northwestern, Southeastern and Oghur groups may further be summarized asWest Turkic, the Northeastern, Kyrgyz-Kipchak, and Arghu (Khalaj) groups asEast Turkic.[31]
Geographically and linguistically, the languages of the Northwestern and Southeastern subgroups belong to the central Turkic languages, while the Northeastern and Khalaj languages are the so-called peripheral languages.[citation needed]
The followingisoglosses are traditionally used in the classification of the Turkic languages:[29][33]
Rhotacism (or in some views, zetacism), e.g. in the last consonant of the word for "nine" *tokkuz. This separates the Oghur branch, which exhibits /r/, from the rest of Turkic, which exhibits /z/. In this case, rhotacism refers to the development of *-/r/, *-/z/, and *-/d/ to /r/,*-/k/,*-/kh/ in this branch.[34] See Antonov and Jacques (2012)[35] on the debate concerning rhotacism and lambdacism in Turkic.
Intervocalic *d, e.g. the second consonant in the word for "foot" *hadaq
Suffix-final -G, e.g. in the suffix *lIG, in e.g. *tāglïg
Additional isoglosses include:
Preservation of word initial *h, e.g. in the word for "foot" *hadaq. This separates Khalaj as a peripheral language.
Denasalisation of palatal *ń, e.g. in the word for "moon", *āń
The following is a brief comparison ofcognates among the basic vocabulary across the Turkic language family (about 60 words). Despite being cognates, some of the words may denote a different meaning.
Empty cells do not necessarily imply that a particular language is lacking a word to describe the concept, but rather that the word for the concept in that language may be formed from another stem and is not cognate with the other words in the row or that aloanword is used in its place.
Also, there may be shifts in the meaning from one language to another, and so the "Common meaning" given is only approximate. In some cases, the form given is found only in some dialects of the language, or a loanword is much more common (e.g. in Turkish, the preferred word for "fire" is the Persian-derivedateş, whereas the nativeod is not in use in the standard language anymore). Forms are given in native Latin orthographies unless otherwise noted.
The Turkic language family is currently regarded as one of the world's primarylanguage families.[10] Turkic is one of the main members of the controversialAltaic language family, but Altaic currently lacks support from a majority of linguists. None of the theories linking Turkic languages to other families have a wide degree of acceptance at present. Shared features with languages grouped together as Altaic have been interpreted by most mainstream linguists to be the result of asprachbund.[56]
The possibility of a genetic relation between Turkic andKoreanic, independently from Altaic, is suggested by some linguists.[57][58][59] The linguist Kabak (2004) of theUniversity of Würzburg states that Turkic and Korean share similarphonology as well asmorphology.[citation needed] Li Yong-Sŏng (2014) suggest that there are severalcognates between Turkic andOld Korean. He states that these supposed cognates can be useful to reconstruct the early Turkic language. According to him, words related to nature, earth and ruling but especially to the sky and stars seem to be cognates.[58]
The linguist Choi suggested already in 1996 a close relationship between Turkic and Korean regardless of any Altaic connections:[59]
In addition, the fact that the morphological elements are not easily borrowed between languages, added to the fact that the common morphological elements between Korean and Turkic are not less numerous than between Turkic and other Altaic languages, strengthens the possibility that there is a close genetic affinity between Korean and Turkic.
— Choi Han-Woo, A Comparative Study of Korean and Turkic (Hoseo University)
Some linguists suggested a relation toUralic languages, especially to theUgric languages. This view is rejected and seen as obsolete by mainstream linguists. Similarities are because of language contact and borrowings mostly from Turkic into Ugric languages. Stachowski (2015) states that any relation between Turkic and Uralic must be a contact one.[62]
^Nikolai Baskakov and some others believe that the Kyrgyz–Kipchak subgroup originally belonged to the Siberian group, but was significantly influenced by the Kipchak languages and can now be included in the Kipchak group.[42][43][44]
^Lars Johanson once considered Kyrgyz language to be a member of South Kipchak.(Johanson 1998)
^Äynu contains a very largePersian vocabulary component, and is spoken exclusively by adult men, almost as acryptolect.
^Lars Johanson once classified South Siberian group into 4 subgroups (Sayan Turkic, Yenisei Turkic, Chulym Turkic and Altai Turkic). Sayan Turkic consisted of Tuvan (Soyot, Uriankhai) and Tofa (Karagas). Yenisei Turkic consisted of Khakas, Shor and related dialects (Saghay, Qaca, Qizil). Chulym Turkic consisted of dialects such as Küerik. Altai Turkic consisted of Altay (Oirot) and dialects such as Tuba, Qumanda, Qu, Teleut, Telengit. (Johanson 1998)
^According to Lars Johanson, Fuyu Kyrgyz is considered to be closely related to Khakas.
^Nikolai Baskakov and some others considered Southern Altai language to be a member of Kyrgyz-Kipchak subgroup.[42][43][44]
^abRybatzki, Volker (2020). "Altaic Languages: Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic". In Martine Robbeets; Alexander Savelyev (eds.).The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 22–28.doi:10.1093/oso/9780198804628.003.0003.
^Vovin, Alexander (2005). "The end of the Altaic controversy: In memory of Gerhard Doerfer".Central Asiatic Journal.49 (1):71–132.JSTOR41928378.
^Georg, Stefan; Michalove, Peter A.; Ramer, Alexis Manaster; Sidwell, Paul J. (1999). "Telling general linguists about Altaic".Journal of Linguistics.35 (1):65–98.doi:10.1017/S0022226798007312.JSTOR4176504.S2CID144613877.
^Clark, Larry V. (1980). "Turkic Loanwords in Mongol, I: The Treatment of Non-initial S, Z, Š, Č".Central Asiatic Journal.24 (1/2):36–59.JSTOR41927278.
^Rachewiltz, Igor de.Introduction to Altaic philology: Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu / by Igor de Rachewiltz and Volker Rybatzki; with the collaboration of Hung Chin-fu. p. cm. — (Handbook of Oriental Studies = Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 8, Central Asia; 20). — Leiden; Boston, 2010. — P. 7.
^Johanson, Lars; Csató, Éva Á, eds. (2021).The Turkic Languages. Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781003243809.ISBN978-1-003-24380-9.Another Turkic people in the Volga area are the Chuvash, who, like the Tatars, regard themselves as descendants of the Volga Bulghars in the historical and cultural sense. It is clear that Chuvash belongs to the Oghur branch of Turkic, as the language of the Volga Bulghars did, but no direct evidence for diachronic development between the two has been established. As there were several distinct Oghur languages in the Middle Ages, Volga Bulghar could represent one of these and Chuvash another.
^Agyagási, K. (2020)."A Volga Bulgarian Classifier: A Historical and Areal Linguistic Study".University of Debrecen.3: 9.Modern Chuvash is the only descendant language of the Ogur branch. The ancestors of its speakers left the Khazar Empire in the 8th century and migrated to the region at the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers, where they founded the Volga Bulgarian Empire in the 10th century. In the central Volga region three Volga Bulgarian dialects developed, and Chuvash is the descendant of the 3rd dialect of Volga Bulgarian (Agyagási 2019: 160–183). Sources refer to it as a separate language beginning with 1508
^Poppe, Nicolas J. (1966). "A Survey of Studies of Turkic Loan-Words in the Russian Language".Central Asiatic Journal.11 (4):287–310.ISSN0008-9192.JSTOR41926932.
^Findley, Carter V. (October 2004).The Turks in World History. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-517726-8.
^Gordon, Raymond G. Jr., ed. (2005)."Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Language Family Trees – Turkic".Archived from the original on 14 September 2012. Retrieved18 March 2007. The reliability ofEthnologue lies mainly in its statistics whereas its framework for the internal classification of Turkic is still based largely on Baskakov (1962) and the collective work in Deny et al. (1959–1964). A more up-to-date alternative to classifying these languages on internal comparative grounds is to be found in the work of Johanson and his co-workers.
^abcBaskakov, N. A. (1958). "La Classification des Dialectes de la Langue Turque d'Altaï".Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (in French).8:9–15.ISSN0001-6446.
^abcBaskakov, N. A. (1969).Введение в изучение тюркских языков [Introduction to the study of the Turkic languages] (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka.
^Rassadin, V.I."The Soyot Language".Endangered Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia.UNESCO.Archived from the original on 3 May 2006. Retrieved18 July 2021.
^Bitkeeva, A.N."The Kumandin Language".Endangered Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia.UNESCO.Archived from the original on 11 July 2021. Retrieved16 July 2021.
^Tazranova, A.R."The Chelkan Language".Endangered Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia.UNESCO.Archived from the original on 11 July 2021. Retrieved16 July 2021.
^Nevskaya, I.A."The Teleut Language".Endangered Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia.UNESCO.Archived from the original on 11 July 2021. Retrieved16 July 2021.
^Sibata, Takesi (1979). "Some syntactic similarities between Turkish, Korean, and Japanese".Central Asiatic Journal.23 (3/4):293–296.ISSN0008-9192.JSTOR41927271.
^abSOME STAR NAMES IN MODERN TURKIC LANGUAGES-I – Yong-Sŏng LI – Academy of Korean Studies Grant funded by the Korean Government (MEST) (AKS-2010-AGC-2101) – Seoul National University 2014
Akhatov G. Kh. 1960. "About the stress in the language of the Siberian Tatars in connection with the stress of modern Tatar literary language" .- Sat *"Problems of Turkic and the history of Russian Oriental Studies." Kazan.(in Russian)
Akhatov G.Kh. 1963. "Dialect West Siberian Tatars" (monograph). Ufa.(in Russian)
Baskakov, N. A. (1962, 1969).Introduction to the study of the Turkic languages. Moscow.(in Russian)
Boeschoten, Hendrik & Lars Johanson. 2006.Turkic languages in contact. Turcologica, Bd. 61. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.ISBN3-447-05212-0
Clausen, Gerard. 1972.An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deny, Jean et al. 1959–1964.Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Johanson, Lars & Éva Agnes Csató (ed.). 2022.The Turkic Languages. Second edition. London: Routledge.ISBN978-0-415-73856-9.
Johanson, Lars. 2022. "The history of Turkic." In: Johanson & Csató, pp. 83–120.[2]Archived 8 April 2011 at theWayback Machine
Johanson, Lars. 1998. "Turkic languages." In:Encyclopædia Britannica. CD 98. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 5 September 2007.[3]Archived 23 June 2008 at theWayback Machine
Menges, K. H. 1968.The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Öztopçu, Kurtuluş. 1996. Dictionary of the Turkic languages: English, Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Turkish, Turkmen, Uighur, Uzbek. London: Routledge.ISBN0-415-14198-2
Samoilovich, A. N. 1922.Some additions to the classification of the Turkish languages. Petrograd.
Schönig, Claus. 1997–1998. "A new attempt to classify the Turkic languages I-III."Turkic Languages 1:1.117–133, 1:2.262–277, 2:1.130–151.
Schönig, Claus. "The Internal Division of Modern Turkic and Its Historical Implications". In:Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, vol. 52, no. 1, 1999, pp. 63–95. JSTOR,http://www.jstor.org/stable/43391369Archived 3 January 2023 at theWayback Machine. Accessed 3 January 2023.
1These are traditional areas of settlement; the Turkic group has been living in the listed country/region for centuries and should not be confused with modern diasporas. 2State with limited international recognition.
