1887
image of Eyes do not lie but words do
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Evidentiality encodes how a speaker has access to the information contained in his/her proposition. It has been shown that some ‘evidential language’ speakers make a deliberate choice of evidentials while telling lies (Aikhenvald 2004). In this study, we recruited 40 native speakers of Turkish, an ‘evidential language’, to judge statements with evidentials using an eye-movement-monitoring-during-reading study with an end-of-sentence deception detection task. The participants read sentences with four conditions, containing a direct or indirect evidential form either compatible or incompatible with the given information source. Our results show that the indirect evidential condition was detected as a lie more often than the direct evidential condition. Readers had the tendency to judge stimulus material with source-evidentiality mismatch to be untruthful. These findings were mirrored in the eye-movement data, as we found gaze duration to be longer at the critical verb region for indirect evidential and mismatch conditions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22061.ars
2024-07-09
2024-07-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan
    2000 Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish. InLars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), –. 10.1515/9783110805284.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805284.15 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016 The interface of evidentials and epistemics in Turkish: Perspectives from acquisition. InMine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkız Öztürk & Meltem Kelepir (eds.), Exploring the Turkish linguistic landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.175.09aks
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.175.09aks [Google Scholar]
  4. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Dan I. Slobin
    1986 A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. InWallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arslan, Seçkin
    2020 When the owner of information is unsure: Epistemic uncertainty influences evidentiality processing in Turkish. Lingua. e102989. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102989
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102989 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arslan, Seçkin, Dörte de Kok & Roelien Bastiaanse
    2017 Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. –. 10.1017/S136672891500084X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891500084X [Google Scholar]
  7. Arslan, Seçkin, Semra Selvi-Balo, İlknur Maviş & Fanny Meunier
    2021 Event witnessability and evidentiality: A preliminary study on healthy aging Turkish adults. Paper presented atL’Evidentialité et la Modalité: Au Croisement de la Grammaire et du Lexique, Montpellier, 10–11 June 2021.
  8. Aydin, Çağla & Stephen J. Ceci
    2009 Evidentiality and suggestibility: A new research venue. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. –. 10.1002/cd.251
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.251 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas Bates
    2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language. –. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven C. Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. –. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols
    (eds.) 1986Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language. –. 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hauch, Valerie, Iris Blandón-Gitlin, Jaume Masip & Siegfried L. Sporer
    2015 Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review. –. 10.1177/1088868314556539
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314556539 [Google Scholar]
  15. Johanson, Lars
    2000 Turkic indirectives. InLars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), –. 10.1515/9783110805284.61
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805284.61 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003 Evidentiality in Turkic. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.54.15joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.15joh [Google Scholar]
  17. Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas
    (eds.) 2000Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110805284
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805284 [Google Scholar]
  18. Karaca, Figen
    2018Comprehension of evidentiality in spoken Turkish: Comparing monolingual and bilingual speakers. Edmonton: University of Alberta Master of Science thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Karaslaan, Hatice, Annette Hohenberger, Hilmi Demir, Simon Hall & Mike Oaksford
    2018 Cross-cultural differences in informal argumentation: norms, inductive biases and evidentiality. Journal of Cognition and Culture. –. 10.1163/15685373‑12340035
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340035 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    1997Turkish. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Levine, Timothy R., Hee S. Park, & Steven A. McCornack
    1999 Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the ‘veracity effect’. Communication Monographs. –. 10.1080/03637759909376468
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lewis, Geoffrey L.
    1967Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Logačev, Pavel & Sharavan Vasishth
    2013 em2: A package for computing reading time measures for psycholinguistics [Computer software manual] (R package version 0.9). Available online athttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=em2
  24. Meibauer, Jörg
    2018 The linguistics of lying. Annual Review of Linguistics. –. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011817‑045634
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045634 [Google Scholar]
  25. Nuyts, Jan
    2001 Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ozturk, Ozge & Anna Papafragou
    2016 The acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring. Language Learning and Development. –. 10.1080/15475441.2015.1024834
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2015.1024834 [Google Scholar]
  27. Plungian, Vladimir A.
    2001 The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00006‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Porter, Stephen & Leanne ten Brinke
    2010 The truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes deception?Legal and Criminological Psychology. –. 10.1348/135532509X433151
    https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X433151 [Google Scholar]
  29. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2018R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Seehttps://www.R-project.org. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sezer, Taner & Bengü Sever Sezer
    2013 TS corpus: Herkes için Türkçe Derlem (tscorpus.com) Proceedings of the 27th National Linguistics Conference, –. Antalya: Hacettepe University.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Slobin, Dan I. & Ayhan A. Aksu
    1982 Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. InPaul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.1.13slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.1.13slo [Google Scholar]
  32. Tosun, Sümeyra & Jyotsna Vaid
    2018 Source vs. stance: on the relationship between evidential and modal expressions. Dialogue & Discourse. –. 10.5087/dad.2018.105
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2018.105 [Google Scholar]
  33. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language. –. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22061.ars
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22061.ars
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: evidentiality ; lie ; Turkish ; eye-movements
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error