LINGUIST List 22.4564

Tue Nov 15 2011

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

Editor for this issue: Xiyan Wang <>

        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 <>
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 isexplicitly coded in the sentence. The main types of evidentials are directevidence (audio, visual, sensory) and indirect evidence (inferential,reported, reasoning). Languages differ in how and which evidential typesthey grammaticalize.

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

The native-speaker test results show that Turkish grammaticallydistinguishes between the direct and indirect evidentials. However,contrary to the general categorization, our study claims that -DI is notthe only grammatical item to mark direct evidence. Our study puts forwardthat, 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 thespeaker is presenting the information from his/her own conscious.Furthermore, our study shows that the Turkish evidential marker {mIş} isnot used to mark assumptives, which supports the evidential definition byFaller (2002).

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

Page Updated: 15-Nov-2011