Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

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

Abstract

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: A. Seza Doğruöz, Tilburg University, Faculty of Humanities, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlandsa.s.dogruoz@gmail.com

Footnotes

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).

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) (2001). Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Backus, A. (1996). Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Backus, A. (2001). The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch–Turkish. In Jacobson, R. (ed.), Trends in linguistics: Codeswitching worldwide II, pp. 125157. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Backus, A. (2004a). Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 179181.
Backus, A. (2004b). Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In Bhatia, T. & Ritchie, W. (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism, pp. 689724. Oxford: Blackwell.
Backus, A. (2005). Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another? International Journal of Bilingualism, 9 (3–4), 307340.
Bolonyai, A. (2000). Elective affinities: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its structural consequences. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 4 (1), 81106.
Bullock, B. & Toribio, A. J. (2004). Introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 9193.
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psy-chological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (3), 437474.
Dede, M. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In Slobin & Zimmer (eds.), pp. 147–165.
Doğruöz, A. S. & Backus, A. (2007). Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of change? International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (2), 185221.
Dorian, N. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22 (1), 125.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64 (3), 501538.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532568.
Grzega, J. (2003). Borrowing as a word-finding process in cognitive historical onomasiology. Onomasiology Online, 4, 2242.
Haase, M. (1992). Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel im Baskenland. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. T. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251299.
Johanson, L. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Kiliçaslan, Y. (2004). Syntax of information structure in Turkish. Linguistics, 42, 717764.
Kiliçaslan, Y. (2006). A situation-theoretic approach to case marking semantics in Turkish. Lingua, 116, 112144.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundation of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71 (1), 162.
Libben, G. (1998) Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61 (1), 3044.
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B. & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84 (1), 5064.
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic conver-gence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 125142.
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual en-counters and grammatical outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223242.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70 (3), 491538.
Otheguy, R. (1993). A reconsideration of the notion of loan translation in the analysis of U.S. Spanish. In Roca, A. & Lipski, J. M. (eds.), Spanish in the United States: Linguistic contact and diversity, pp. 2141. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Owens, J. (1996). Idiomatic structure and theory of genetic relationship. Diachronica 13, 283318.
Roelofs, A. & Baayen, H. R. (2002). Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Pyschonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 132138.
Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rostila, J. (2006). Storage as a way to grammaticalization. Constructions, 1, 159. www.constructions-online.de (30 August 2006).
Sánchez, L. (2004). Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 147162.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1998). On borrowing as a mechanism of syntactic change. In Schwegler, A., Tranel, B. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives, pp. 225246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In Macnamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought, pp. 185214. San Francisco: Academic Press.
Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (eds.) (1986). Studies in Turkish linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1998). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimatization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 165173.
Tura, S. S. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish non-verbal sentences. In Slobin & Zimmer (eds.), pp. 165–195.
Türker, E. (2000). Turkish–Norwegian codeswitching: Evidence from intermediate and second generation immigrant Turkish in Norway. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo. [Oslo: Unipub Forlag, no. 83.]
Türker, E. (2005). Resisting the grammatical change: Nominal groups in Turkish–Norwegian codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 453477.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Acquisition, 30, 75115.
Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed