A Study on evidentiality in Cypriot Turkish and Turkey Turkish with a cross-linguistic perspective

Işık Taş, Elvan Eda
Sağın Şimşek, Sultan Çiğdem
A number of studies have thus far compared grammatical features of Turkey Turkish and Cypriot Turkish and have identified the realization of evidentiality as one of the distinguishing features of these two varieties. According to these studies, in Turkey Turkish while the morpheme -DI is used to report witnessed events (direct experience), the morpheme –mIş is used to express hearsay, reported or inferred information (indirect experience) (e.g., Aksu-Koç, 1995). In Cypriot Turkish, on the other hand, hearsay, reported or inferred information (indirect experience) is expressed mainly with the morpheme –DI, as –mIş does not possess any indirect or inferential meaning and is mainly used to describe dubitative function (Demir, 2002). This study aims to explore, first, whether variation exists regarding the functions of evidentials used in the oral productions of Turkey Turkish and Cypriot Turkish speakers. If yes, the study also aims to explore whether the difference between the two varieties can be explained due to language contact phenomenon. Evidentiality in Turkey Turkish and Cypriot Turkish has not been extensively researched and the few existing studies (Brendemoen, 1996; Demir, 2002; Demir & Johanson, 2006; Abdurrazzak, 2012) are based on the observations of the language use of the Cypriot Turkish participants or the linguistic analysis of the early literary works and are thus descriptive. In this sense, we believe that by utilizing an exploratory methodology, the present study will contribute to the linguistic and cross-linguistic analysis of the evidentials in the Cypriot Turkish. The data were collected from four groups of participants. The first group consisted of native speaker Cypriot Turkish university students aged between 18-22. We assumed that the participants in this group would be more sensitive to the perception and production of evidentials in Turkey Turkish since they interacted with their Turkey Turkish speaking peers. The second group were native Cypriot Turkish speakers of ages 50 and above, who lived in historical Cypriot Turkish villages. We assumed that the participants in this group had more experience with the Greek language but less contact with Turkey Turkish compared to the participants of the first group. Accordingly, their production preferences and perception abilities of evidentials would be different than the participants in the first group. The third and the fourth groups comprised native Turkey Turkish speakers of comparable ages to the first and the second groups of speakers respectively. The first task, in the form of an interview, aimed to reveal how evidentials were expressed by the participants and required the participants to answer questions about their direct and indirect past experiences. The second task aimed to examine how the evidentials used by the native Turkish and Cypriot Turkish speakers were perceived by one another. The task was developed utilizing the data obtained in the first task and required the participants to read the experiences/anecdotes and response to the questions asking whether they reported direct or indirect experiences. The data analysis so far highlighted significant variation in the grammatical and lexical expression of evidentiality across the two varieties. Regardless of their ages, Turkey Turkish speakers used –DI to express their direct experiences and –mIş to express indirect experiences. The Cypriot Turkish speakers, on the other hand, behaved differently. While the older group used –DI as the main evidential marker indicating both direct and indirect experiences together with some lexical elements, the younger group used both –DI and –mIş to express indirect experiences. Another important finding so far seems to be that Turkey Turkish speakers interpreted all instances of -DI in the perception task as “witnessed events” and misinterpreted the instances in which Cypriot Turkish speakers used this morpheme to report hearsay of indirect evidence. These results are likely related to the language contact of Cypriot Turkish with the Greek and Turkish languages. Presumably due to the influence from Greek, Cypriot Turkish lacked indirect evidential marker -mIş but included more of lexical elements indicating indirect experience. However, the increasing contact with the Turkey Turkish language seemed to result in the use of –mIş as an indicator of indirect experience but still supported by lexical elements.
International Conference on Evidentiality and Modality ICEM'18 (19 - 22 Eylül 2018)


A Usage-based investigation of converbial constructions in heritage speakers’ Turkish living in the Netherlands
Akkuş, Mehmet; Sağın Şimşek, Sultan Çiğdem; Department of English Language Teaching (2019)
This study presents an analysis of contact-induced language change process concerning clausal subordination in the Turkish variety spoken in the Netherlands (henceforth, Dutch Turkish). This study also aims at investigating whether the converbial constructions are prone to language change in the speech perception and production of the first and second generations of Dutch-Turkish speakers within the framework of usage-based linguistics (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000). According to usage-based linguistics, there is ...
A corpus-based study of evidentials in the Turkish Cypriot dialect
Isik-Tas, Elvan Eda; Sağın Şimşek, Sultan Çiğdem (2019-11-01)
Using a corpus-based language contact framework, this study explores how evidentiality is expressed in Standard Turkish spoken in Turkey (TT) and the Turkish Cypriot Dialect spoken in North Cyprus (CT). The corpus comprises oral interviews with 80 speakers in North Cyprus and Turkey. We compared the expressions of direct and indirect experience in the oral productions of speakers aged between 18 and 22 (18+ group) with the expressions of speakers who were 50 and older (50+ group). We used two comparable sub...
A note on the contact between Kurmanji Kurdish and Turkish at lexical and morphological level
Çabuk Ballı, Sakine (SAGE Publications, 2019-08-01)
Turkish-Kurdish social setting where the Turkish and Kurdish languages are in contact for a long time induces borrowing and change at different levels.This study explores the contact between Kurmanji Kurdish and Turkish that take place at both morphological and lexical level. The data consist of three hours of recordings of family talks on the phone. Corpus analysis of data obtained from audio and video recordings of a family talk on the phone was done. Preliminary findings revealed that verbs are borrowed ...
An Input-Output Analysis of the Turkish Construction Sector 1973-1990
Birgönül, Mustafa Talat (Ashgate, 2000-06-01)
Using the four input-output tables compiled in Turkey to date, the aim of this paper is to examine the construction sector’s role in Turkish economy and analyse its relationships with the other sectors of the national economy. Analysis results show that the share of construction in GNP and NI tend to increase whereas the GNP share of manufacturing is relatively stable and that of services tend to increase after an abrupt decrease in 1985; backward linkage indicators and output multipliers as well as forward...
Applying level of analysis discussion to the relations between Germany and Turkey: 1999-2014
Yavuz, Merve; Bağcı, Hüseyin; Department of International Relations (2019)
Relations between Germany and Turkey include many different aspects. Therefore, applying the level of analysis to their relations is very useful to understand them. Three levels of analysis which are derived from Kenneth Waltz’s three images are used for this discussion. These are system level, state level and individual level. System level refers to the power positions of both Germany and Turkey while the state level indicates the domestic features of these two countries that are effective on the relations...
Citation Formats
E. E. Işık Taş and S. Ç. Sağın Şimşek, “A Study on evidentiality in Cypriot Turkish and Turkey Turkish with a cross-linguistic perspective,” presented at the International Conference on Evidentiality and Modality ICEM′18 (19 - 22 Eylül 2018), Madrid, Spain, 2018, Accessed: 00, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/11511/78062.