Neurolinguistic & psycholinguistic investigations on evidentiality in Turkish

participation and answering behavior
. 
140. Nienke Houtzager (2015). 
Bilingual advantages in middle-aged and 
elderly populations.
141. Noortje Joost Venhuizen (2015). 
Projection in Discourse: A data-
driven formal semantic analysis. 
142. Valerio Basile (2015). 
From Logic to Language: Natural Language 
Generation from Logical Forms
. 
143. Jinxing Yue (2016). 
Tone-word Recognition in Mandarin Chinese: 
Influences of lexical-level representations. 
144. Seçkin Arslan (2016). 
Neurolinguistic and Psycholinguistic 
Investigations on Evidentiality in Turkish.

---

203 
GRODIL 
Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) 
P.O. Box 716 
9700 AS Groningen 
The Netherlands 

---

204 

---

Document Outline

• Acknowledgements
• 1. General introduction
  • 1.1. Introduction
    • 1.1.1. Neurolinguistic aspects: Studies on agrammatic aphasia
    • 1.1.2. Psycholinguistic aspects: Studies on heritage bilingualism
  • 1.2. Linguistic introduction
    • 1.2.1. Evidentiality: A brief snapshot
    • 1.2.2. Evidentiality in Turkish
    • 1.2.3. The direct evidential
    • 1.2.4. The indirect evidential
    • 1.2.5. Time reference and Turkish evidentials
    • 1.2.6. Turkish evidentials in interrogative clauses
    • 1.2.7. Evidentials and their narrative functions
  • 1.3. Issues addressed within this dissertation
    • 1.3.1. Neurolinguistic aspects of evidentiality
    • 1.3.2. Psycholinguistic aspects of evidentiality
  • 1.4. Outline of this dissertation
• 2. Finite verb inflections for evidential categories and source identification in Turkish agrammatic Broca’s aphasia
  • 2.1. Introduction
    • 2.1.1. Turkish evidentials and past time reference
    • 2.1.2. Information source and the brain
    • 2.1.3. The current study
    • 2.1.4. Participants
  • 2.2. Methods
    • 2.2.1. Materials and procedures
      • 2.2.1.1. Sentence completion
      • 2.2.1.2. Source identification
  • 2.3. Results
    • 2.3.1. Sentence completion
    • 2.3.2. Source identification
    • 2.3.3. Production and source identification compared
    • 2.3.4. Summary of results
  • 2.4. Discussion
    • 2.4.1. Production of evidential forms
    • 2.4.2. Information source identification
    • 2.4.3. Evidentials and neuroanatomical representations
  • 2.5. Conclusions
• 3. A characterization of verb use in Turkish agrammatic narrative speech
  • 3.1. Introduction
    • 3.1.1. Lexical verbs in narrative speech
    • 3.1.2. Verb inflection in agrammatic narrative speech
    • 3.1.3. Linguistic background
    • 3.1.4. Agrammatic aphasia in Turkish individuals
    • 3.1.5. The current study
  • 3.2. Methods
    • 3.2.1. Participants
    • 3.2.2. Narrative speech elicitation
    • 3.2.3. Procedure
    • 3.2.4. Analysis
  • 3.3. Results
    • 3.3.1. General agrammatic features
    • 3.3.2. Production of lexical verbs
    • 3.3.3. Production of finite and non-finite verbs
    • 3.3.4. Verb tense and evidentiality
    • 3.3.5. Summary of results
  • 3.4. Discussion
    • 3.4.1. General characteristics of agrammatic aphasia
    • 3.4.2. Production of lexical verbs
    • 3.4.3. Verb finiteness
    • 3.4.4. Evidentials
• The final research question was whether the use of direct and indirect evidentials is affected in Turkish agrammatic speech. Evidentiality is obligatorily marked on finite verbs that refer to the past. In earlier experimental studies, it was shown tha...
• Although the frequency of morphemes referring to the past is normal for both direct and indirect evidentials, a post-hoc analysis revealed that there is a trade-off pattern. Such a trade off pattern was observed earlier between time reference markers ...
• Although the number of evidential verb forms is similar in agrammatic speakers and NBDs, in analogy to the findings in Swahili (Abuom and Bastiaanse, 2012), the agrammatic group provides less information with these verbs. However, there are important ...
• 4. Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers
  • 4.1. Introduction
    • 4.1.1. Expression of evidentiality and time reference in Turkish
    • 4.1.2. Acquisition of evidentiality and participles in Turkish
    • 4.1.3. Studies on evidentiality in Turkish heritage speakers
    • 4.1.4. The current study
  • 4.2. Methods
    • 4.2.1. Participants
    • 4.2.2. Materials
      • 4.2.2.1. Evidentiality through finite verb inflections
      • 4.2.2.2. Time reference through non-finite participles
    • 4.2.3. Material evaluation through offline-ratings
    • 4.2.4. Procedure
    • 4.2.5. Analysis
  • 4.3. Results
    • 4.3.1. Processing evidentiality through finite verb inflections
    • 4.3.2. Processing time reference through non-finite participles
    • 4.3.3. Evidentiality and Time reference violations compared
    • 4.3.4. Summary of results
  • 4.4. Discussion and conclusions
    • 4.4.1. Interface vulnerability
    • 4.4.2. Maturational constraints
    • 4.4.3. A vulnerable grammar domain: evidentiality
• 5. Looking at the evidence in visual world: eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality
  • 5.1. Introduction
    • 5.1.1. Evidentiality in Turkish
    • 5.1.2. Experimental studies on Turkish evidentials
  • 5.2. Materials and methods
    • 5.2.1. Participants
    • 5.2.2. Materials
    • 5.2.3. Evaluation of the experimental sentence stimuli
    • 5.2.4. Procedure
    • 5.2.5. Analysis
  • 5.3. Results
    • 5.3.1. Accuracy and response times
    • 5.3.2. Proportions of looks
    • 5.3.3. Summary of results
  • 5.4. Discussion
• 6. General discussion
  • 6.1. Questions addressed in this dissertation
  • 6.2. Major conclusions
    • 6.2.1. Neurolinguistic aspects of evidentiality
    • 6.2.2. Psycholinguistic aspects of evidentiality
• Appendix
  • A. Appendices from Chapter 2
  • B. Appendices from Chapter 3
  • C. Appendices from Chapter 4
• References
• Summary
• About the author