Neurolinguistic & psycholinguistic investigations on evidentiality in Turkish

126 
(5)
Direct evidential
Hangi fotoğraftaki
adam dün sütü iç
ti 
Which photograph
LOC
man yesterday milk
ACC
drink
DIRECT EVID
ender bir istekle?
unusual one desire. 
“In which photograph did the man drink the milk yesterday with an 
unusual desire?” 
(6)
Indirect evidential 
Hangi fotoğraftaki
adam dün sütü iç
miş
Which photograph
LOC
man yesterday milk
ACC
drink
INDIRECT EVID
ender bir istekle?
unusual one desire.
“In which photograph did the man drink the milk yesterday with an 
unusual desire?”
(7)
Future tense (non-evidential)
Hangi fotoğraftaki
adam birazdan sütü
Which photograph
LOC
man soon milk
ACC
iç
ecek
ender bir istekle?
drink
FUTURE
unusual one desire. 
“In which photograph will the man drink the milk soon with an unusual 
desire?” 

---

127 
5.2.3.
 
Evaluation of the experimental sentence 
stimuli
43
 
The plausibility of our experimental stimuli was evaluated in an offline 
rating study using a four-point Likert scale (1 = very plausible, 4 = very 
implausible). To construct plausible test items, the evidentiality sentences 
exemplified by (5) and (6) were converted into declarative clauses. The 
‘plausible direct evidential condition’ (n=20) contained semantically 
coherent sentences with a direct evidential form (e.g. 
adam dün sütü içti, 
ender bir istekle
“the man drank the milk with unusual desire”), and the 
‘plausible indirect evidential condition’ (n=20) contained semantically 
coherent sentences with an indirect evidential form (e.g. 
adam dün sütü 
içmiş, ender bir istekle
“the man drank the milk with unusual desire”). To 
create implausible counterparts of the plausible conditions, the agent and 
theme arguments in those sentences were reversed (e.g. 
süt dün adamı içti, 
ender bir istekle
“the milk drank the man with unusual desire”). The 
plausible and implausible sentences were distributed across four 
presentation 
lists, 
counterbalanced 
across