Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change*

  • A. SEZA DOĞRUÖZ (a1) and AD BACKUS (a1)

Turkish as spoken in the Netherlands (NL-Turkish) sounds “different” (unconventional) to Turkish speakers in Turkey (TR-Turkish). We claim that this is due to structural contact-induced change that is, however, located within specific lexically complex units copied from Dutch. This article investigates structural change in NL-Turkish through analyses of spoken corpora collected in the bilingual Turkish community in the Netherlands and in a monolingual community in Turkey. The analyses reveal that at the current stage of contact, NL-Turkish is not copying Dutch syntax as such, but rather translates lexically complex individual units into Turkish. Perceived semantic equivalence between Dutch units and their Turkish equivalents plays a crucial role in this translation process. Counter to expectations, the TR-Turkish data also contained unconventional units, though they differed in type, and were much less frequent than those in NL-Turkish. We conclude that synchronic variation in individual NL-Turkish units can contain the seeds of future syntactic change, which will only be visible after an increase in the type and token frequency of the changing units.

Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: A. Seza Doğruöz, Tilburg University, Faculty of Humanities, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The
Hide All

We would like to thank the audience at the 2007 UWM Linguistics Symposium on Formulaic Language and the 6th International Symposium on Bilingualism, as well as Elma Nap-Kolhoff, Maria Mos and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. The research reported was made possible by a grant from NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, Grant 016-024-012).

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Backus (2005). Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another? International Journal of Bilingualism, 9 (3–4), 307340.

A. Bolonyai (2000). Elective affinities: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its structural consequences. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 4 (1), 81106.

W. Croft (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

E. Dąbrowska & E. Lieven (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (3), 437474.

A. S. Doğruöz & A. Backus (2007). Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of change? International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (2), 185221.

C. J. Fillmore , P. Kay & M. C. O'Connor (1988). Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64 (3), 501538.

A. Goldberg & R. Jackendoff (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532568.

P. J. Hopper & S. T. Thompson (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251299.

Y. Kiliçaslan (2004). Syntax of information structure in Turkish. Linguistics, 42, 717764.

Y. Kiliçaslan (2006). A situation-theoretic approach to case marking semantics in Turkish. Lingua, 116, 112144.

R. W. Langacker (1991). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

R. W. Langacker (1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71 (1), 162.

G. Libben (1998) Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61 (1), 3044.

G. Libben , M. Gibson , Y. B. Yoon & D. Sandra (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84 (1), 5064.

C. Myers-Scotton (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual en-counters and grammatical outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press.

N. Nesselhauf (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223242.

G. Nunberg , I. A. Sag & T. Wasow (1994). Idioms. Language, 70 (3), 491538.

J. Owens (1996). Idiomatic structure and theory of genetic relationship. Diachronica 13, 283318.

A. Roelofs & H. R. Baayen (2002). Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Pyschonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 132138.

C. Silva-Corvalán (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

C. Silva-Corvalán (1998). On borrowing as a mechanism of syntactic change. In A. Schwegler , B. Tranel & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives, pp. 225246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds.) (1986). Studies in Turkish linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

E. Türker (2005). Resisting the grammatical change: Nominal groups in Turkish–Norwegian codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 453477.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1366-7289
  • EISSN: 1469-1841
  • URL: /core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 54 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 119 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.