Neurolinguistic & psycholinguistic investigations on evidentiality in Turkish

xi 
Figure 5.3.
Mean proportions of target fixations in three groups of 
participants during their processing of direct and indirect evidentials 
in two different time windows: (A) 200–2000 ms and (B) 1200–2000 
ms after verb onset.
............................................................................ 136
 
List of Tables 
Table 1.1. 
Types of evidential forms
and
their meanings based
on 
Aikhenvald’s (2004, pp. 63-64) classification
....................................... 6
Table 2.1.
Examples of Turkish Evidentials and their relation to the 
category of information source
............................................................ 29
Table 2.2.
Demographic characteristics and etiological information of the 
participants
.......................................................................................... 37
Table 2.3.
Mean number of correctly inflected verb forms by agrammatic 
speakers across conditions (max=10 each condition; ranges in 
brackets).
............................................................................................. 42
Table 2.4.
Mean number of correctly identified categories of information 
source by agrammatic and NBDs. Ranges in brackets (max=10 per 
condition)
............................................................................................. 43
Table 2.5.
Number and percentage of source identification errors and 
source misattributions made by the agrammatic speakers per condition 
(total number of source errors = 121; 91 of these are misattributions)
............................................................................................................. 44
Table 3.1.
The means and standard deviations (sd) for the general 
measures for agrammatism (MLU= mean length of utterances)
........ 69
Table 3.2.
Means and standard deviations (sd) for the measures of the 
lexical verbs (TTR = type token ratio)
................................................. 70

---