Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-dknvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T08:16:43.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2015

SEÇKİN ARSLAN*
Affiliation:
International Doctorate for Experimental Approaches to Language and Brain (IDEALAB), University of Groningen, The Netherlands University of Potsdam, Germany University of Newcastle, UK University of Trento, Italy Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Center for Language and Cognition (CLCG), Department of Linguistics, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
DÖRTE DE KOK
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Tübingen, Germany
ROELIEN BASTIAANSE
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Cognition (CLCG), Department of Linguistics, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr. S. Arslan, M.A., M.Sc., Center for Language and Cognition (CLCG), Research Group Neurolinguistics, University of Groningen, PO Box 716, 9700 AS, Groningen, The Netherlands. seckin1984@gmail.com

Abstract

In the current study, we examined how adult heritage and monolingual speakers of Turkish process evidentiality (the linguistic expression of information source) through finite verb inflections and time reference, expressed on non-finite participles. A sentence-verification task was used to measure participants’ sensitivity to evidentiality and time-reference violations in Turkish. Our findings showed that the heritage speakers were less accurate and slower than the monolinguals in responding to both evidentiality and time-reference violations. Also, the heritage speakers made more errors and had longer RTs when responding to evidentiality violations as compared to time-reference violations. The monolinguals had longer RTs (and more accurate responses) to time reference than to evidentiality violations. This study shows that evidentiality is susceptible to incomplete acquisition in Turkish heritage speakers. It is suggested that the requirement for simultaneous processing at different linguistic levels makes the evidentiality markers vulnerable.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Pınar Arslan, Claudia Felser, Katrina Gaffney, Paul Slomp, and Margriet Zwiers for their help during different stages of this study. We are grateful to Ludovica Serratrice and the three anonymous BLC reviewers for their constructive feedback and comments on earlier versions of this paper. The first author is supported by an Erasmus Mundus grant for the International Doctorate for Experimental Approaches to Language and Brain’ (IDEALAB) by the European Commission under grant no <2012-1713/001-001-EMII EMJD>.

References

Aarssen, J. (2001). Development of temporal relations in narratives by Turkish-Dutch bilingual children. In Verhoeven, L. T. & Stromqvist, S. (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context. (pp. 209231). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akıncı, M. (2003). Temporal anchoring of texts in Turkish of first and second generation Turkish immigrants in France. In Özsoy, A. S., Akar, D., Nakipoglu-Demiralp, M., Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. & Aksu-Koç, A. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 289297): Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. (pp. 329385). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. (2000). Some aspects of the acquisition of evidential in Turkish. In Johanson, L. & Utas, B. (Eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. (pp. 1528). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1986). A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Wallace, C. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistemiology. (pp. 159167): Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Chakrani, B. (2013). Gender and number agreement in the oral production of Arabic Heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (01), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Saadah, E. (2011). Grammatical features of Egyptian and Palestinian Arabic heritage speakers’ oral production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (02), 273303.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. T. (1999). Loss of gender agreement in L1 attrition: Preliminary results. Bilingual Research Journal, 23 (4), 389408.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. T. (2001). Lexical morphology and verb use in child first language loss: A preliminary case study investigation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5 (4), 377401.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., & Bastiaanse, R. (2014). Tense/aspect and Evidentiality in narrative speech of Turkish-Dutch bilingual speakers. Paper presented at the 17th International conference on Turkish linguistics, University of Rouen, France.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 390412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics, 39 (3–4), 259294.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11 (4), 337406.Google Scholar
Bolonyai, A. (2002). Case systems in contact: Syntactic and lexical case in bilingual child language. Southwest journal of linguistics, 21 (2), 1.Google Scholar
Bolonyai, A. (2007). (In) vulnerable agreement in incomplete bilingual L1 learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (1), 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csató, E. A. (2000). Turkish mis-and imis-items. Dimensions of a functional analysis. In Johanson, L. & Utas, B. (Eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages (pp. 2946). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., & Weltens, B. (1991). Recapitulation, regression, and language loss. In Seliger, H. W. & Vago, R. M. (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 3151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Paper presented at the Fifth international conference on Turkish linguistics, London University, England.Google Scholar
Enç, M. (1987). Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic inquiry, 633–657.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1993). Türkçe'de-DIK ekinin yantümcelerdeki işlevi üzerine. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 161–171.Google Scholar
Gürel, A., & Yilmaz, G. (2011). Restructuring in the L1 Turkish grammar: Effects of L2 English and L2 Dutch. Language, Interaction and Acquisition/Langage, Interaction et Acquisition, 2 (2), 221250.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgezetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 273290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keijzer, M. (2010). The regression hypothesis as a framework for first language attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (01), 918.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2009). Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16 (1), 335.Google Scholar
Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A Web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38 (2), 202210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montrul, S. A. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adults bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition., 5 (1), 3968.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2009). Knowledge of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13 (2), 239269.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 26 (3), 293327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2011). Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121 (4), 591604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Bhatt, R. M., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2 (2), 141176.Google Scholar
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2010). Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston University.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Ö., & Papafragou, A. (2007). Children's acquisition of evidentiality. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston University.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Ö., & Papafragou, A. (2008). Acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston University.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14 (2), 191262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008). Heritage Language Narratives . In Brinton, D., Kagan, O. & Bauckus, S. (Eds.), Heritage languages: A new field emerging. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (02), 305328.Google Scholar
R-Core-Team. (2012). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: http://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (4), 359389.Google Scholar
Sezer, E. (2001). Finite inflection in Turkish. In Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp. 146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1986). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages. In Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 273289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Aksu, A. A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In Hopper, P. J. (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 185200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic Optionality in Non-Native Grammars. Second Language Research, 16 (2), 93102.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (1), 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22 (3), 339368.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13 (2), 195210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic inquiry, 3 (1), 8799.Google Scholar