* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 22.4564

Tue Nov 15 2011

Diss: Semantics//Typology/Turkish: Corcu Gül: 'A Situational ...'

Editor for this issue: Xiyan Wang <xiyanlinguistlist.org>

New! Multi-tree Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
        1.     Demet Corcu Gül , A Situational Semantic Analysis of Evidentiality:Turkish Evidentials

Message 1: A Situational Semantic Analysis of Evidentiality:Turkish Evidentials
Date: 11-Nov-2011
From: Demet Corcu Gül <demetcmersin.edu.tr>
Subject: A Situational Semantic Analysis of Evidentiality:Turkish Evidentials
E-mail this message to a friend

Institution: Ankara University
Program: Department of Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2010

Author: Demet Corcu Gül

Dissertation Title: A Situational Semantic Analysis of Evidentiality:Turkish Evidentials

Linguistic Field(s): Semantics

Subject Language(s): Turkish (tur)
Language Family(ies): Altaic

Dissertation Director:
Leyla Uzun

Dissertation Abstract:

Linguistic evidentiality is the category where the information source is
explicitly coded in the sentence. The main types of evidentials are direct
evidence (audio, visual, sensory) and indirect evidence (inferential,
reported, reasoning). Languages differ in how and which evidential types
they grammaticalize.

The study presented here suggests an empirical work on Turkish evidentials
which leads to a formal semantic approach to the category of evidentiality.
The study involves the analysis of a series of surveys where native
speakers of Turkish are asked to identify the type of evidence coded in the
sentences, to identify the tense, aspect and modal values of particular
verbal suffixes, and to decide which verbal suffixes are used to code given
evidential value to the sentence. The three surveys are applied to 531
under-graduate students of Ankara University Faculty of Letters and of Gazi
University Faculty of Education.

The native-speaker test results show that Turkish grammatically
distinguishes between the direct and indirect evidentials. However,
contrary to the general categorization, our study claims that -DI is not
the only grammatical item to mark direct evidence. Our study puts forward
that, in Turkish, the one and only grammatical marker of evidentiality is
{mIş} with indirect evidential meaning, whereas any aspect marker, i.e.
{Iyor}, {DI}, and copula on nominal sentences, may indicate that the
speaker is presenting the information from his/her own conscious.
Furthermore, our study shows that the Turkish evidential marker {mIş} is
not used to mark assumptives, which supports the evidential definition by
Faller (2002).

The results achieved from the native speaker tests are used to define the
evidential system of Turkish, which is followed by the formal semantic
analysis of grammatically coded evidential meanings. The formal semantic
analysis presented in the study depends on situation semantics proposed by
Barwise and Perry (1983).

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 15-Nov-2011

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.