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! Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:             http://multitree.linguistlist.org/ To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm. Directory         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                             Typology 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       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.