Neurolinguistic & psycholinguistic investigations on evidentiality in Turkish

B.
Appendices from Chapter 3 ............................................... 158
C.
Appendices from Chapter 4............................................... 163
References ....................................................................................... 168
Summary ......................................................................................... 183
About the author ............................................................................ 192
 
 
 
 
 

---

x 
List of Figures 
Figure 2.1.
Evidential categories of evidential verb forms used in 
expressing past events in Turkish
........................................................ 28
Figure 2.2.
Graphical representation of time reference in Turkish (A) direct 
perception evidential; and (B) the inferential and reportative evidential 
forms (photos are taken from the TART: Bastiaanse, Jonkers, & 
Thompson, 2008)
................................................................................. 32
Figure 3.1.
Graphical representation of the number of direct evidentials 
(tokens) and the type token ratios (TTR). On the Y-axis are the ranks 
(median is 5). Each black and white pair represents one agrammatic 
speaker.
................................................................................................ 74
Figure 4.1
. 
Mean accuracies (A) and RTs (B) of monolingual and heritage 
speakers’ responses to the evidentiality violations by the direct and 
indirect evidential forms. Conditions: Seen-Indirect = seen information 
contexts violated by indirect evidential; Heard-Direct = heard 
information contexts violated by direct evidential.
............................ 100
Figure 4.2.
Mean accuracies (A) and RTs (B) of monolingual and heritage 
speakers’ responses to the time reference violations by the past and 
future participles. Conditions: FutPs = future time contexts violated by 
a past verb form; PsFut = past time contexts violated by future verb 
forms.
................................................................................................. 102
Figure 5.1.
Examples of visual displays appeared in three different 
conditions: A – direct evidential, B – indirect evidential, C – future 
tense.
.................................................................................................. 124
Figure 5.2.
Mean proportions of target fixations per participant group and 
condition for the 2000 ms time window from the onset of the critical 
verb. The y-axis shows participants' mean fixation proportions for 
each of the two evidentiality conditions.
............................................ 134

---