1 Aygen, G. 2003. Are there ‘non-restrictive’ pre-relatives in Turkish? Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 199–215.

2 Cinque, G. 2008. Two types of non-restrictive relatives. In: O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empiricial issiues in syntax and semantics 7 (pp. 99–137). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7

3 Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London.

4 Lees, R. 1961. The phonology of modern standard Turkish. (Uralic and Altaic Series. 6.) Bloomington.

5 Lewis, G. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford.

6 Nakipoğlu, M. & Üntak, A. (forthcoming). What does the acquisition of stems that undergo phonological alternation reveal about rule application? In: É. Á. Csató, B. Karakoç & A. Menz (eds.), The Uppsala meeting: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Turkish linguistics. Wiesbaden.

7 Sezer, E. 1981. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In: G. N. Clements (ed.), Harvard Studies in Phonology. Vol. II. Indiana University: 354–382.

8 Slobin, D. I. 1982. Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In: L. R. Gleitman & E. Wanner (eds.), Language acquisition: state of the art. Cambridge: 128–170.

9 Zimmer, K. 1965. Review of R. B. Lees, The phonology of modern standard Turkish. Word 21: 123–136.

10 Zimmer, K. 1970. On the evaluation of alternative phonological descriptions. Journal of Linguistics 6: 89–98.

11 Zimmer, K. & Abbott, B. 1978. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish: Some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7: 35–46.