1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper is a reanalysis of the Turkish evidential markers as Common Ground management tools. Based on conversational data from Turkish National Corpus and a real-life example from the media, I demonstrate how the traditional description of these markers fails to account for their dialogic uses. The data presented in this paper show that Turkish speakers alternate between these markers in order to mark their epistemic relation to the utterance content relative to their addressee. The relevant pragmatic notions marked with the Turkish evidential system are asymmetric and symmetric epistemic relation of the speaker and addressee, resulting in the speaker’s evaluation of epistemic primacy and shared information, respectively. Turkish also has another symmetric position where the speaker abstains from primacy claim without specifying the addressee’s epistemic relation. These observations lead to the conclusion that Turkish evidentiality is in fact an intersubjective epistemic category in the pragmatic component of language where intersubjectivity is defined as the speaker’s evaluation of the interlocutors’ differential perspectives.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21058.kur
2023-05-10
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2003 “Evidentiality in Typological Perspective.” InStudies in Evidentiality, ed. byAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.54.04aik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.04aik [Google Scholar]
  2. 2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aksan, Mustafa and Yeşim Aksan
    2018 “Linguistic Corpora: A View from Turkish”. InStudies in Turkish Language Processing, ed. byKemal Oflazer and Murat Saraçlar, 301–327. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑90165‑7_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90165-7_14 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan and Dan I. Slobin
    1986 “A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish”. InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. byWallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 159–167. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan
    1988The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554353
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554353 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anlı, Müge (host) and Ahmet Şirin
    (director) 15October 2021 Müge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert 15 Ekim 2021. InTaner Canlı (executive producer), Müge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert. Mavi Klaket. Available athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5is2yk5NOQ. Accessed on20 October 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergqvist, Henrik
    2017 “The Role of ‘Perspective’ in Epistemic Marking.” Lingua186–1871: 5–20. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan
    1991 “Grounding in Communication.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. byLauren B. Resnik, John M. Levine and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Assosication. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  9. DeLancey, Scott
    1997 “Mirativity: the Grammatical Marking of Unexpected Information.” Linguistic Typology11: 33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2001 “The Mirative and Evidentiality.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (3): 369–382. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser
    2000 “Semi-grammaticalized Modality in Turkish”. InStudies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, ed. byAslı Göksel and Celia Kerslake, 113–143. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, Nick
    2005 “View with a View: Towards a Typologoy of Multiple Perspective.” Berkeley Linguistic Society311: 93–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Faller, Martina T.
    2002 Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
  14. Gipper, Sonja
    2015 “(Inter)subjectivity in Interaction: Investigating (Inter)subjective Meanings“ STUF – Language Typology and Universals68 (2): 211–232. 10.1515/stuf‑2015‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2015-0011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake
    2005Turkish, A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grzech, Karolina
    2020a “Managing Common Ground with Epistemic Marking: ‘Evidential’ Markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their Functions in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics1681: 81–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2020b “Epistemic Primacy, Common Ground Management, and Epistemic Perspective.” InEvidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement, ed. byHenrik Berqgvist and Seppo Kittilä, 23–60. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kökpınar-Kaya, Emel
    2014 An Analysis of Conversational Narratives in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Hacettepe University.
  19. Krifka, Manfred
    2007 “Basic Notions of Information Structure.” InThe notions of information structure, ed. byCaroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow and Manfred Krifka, 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. (Working Papers of the SFB 632, 6)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kuram, Kadri
    2022 “A Morpho-pragmatic Classification of Turkish TAM markers.” Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi33 (2): 145–171. 10.18492/dad.1083233
    https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1083233 [Google Scholar]
  21. Labov, William and Joshua Waletzky
    1967 “Narrative Analysis”. InEssays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. byJune Helm, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press. (Reprinted 1997 inJournal of Narrative and Life History71:3–38.)
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  24. Rumsey, Alan
    2020 “Egophoricity, Engagement, and the Centring of Subjectivity.” InEvidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement, ed. byHenrik Bergqvist and Seppo Kittilä, 61–93. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd and Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2017 “Evidentiality and Interrogativity”. Lingua1861: 120–143. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1981 “Tense Variation in Narrative”. Language57(1): 45–62. 10.1353/lan.1981.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Slobin, Dan I. and Ayhan Aksu
    1982 “Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential”. InTense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. byPaul J. Hopper, 185–200. Amsteredam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.1.13slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.1.13slo [Google Scholar]
  28. Stalnaker, Robert
    2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy251: 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  29. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Temürcü, Ceyhan
    2007 A Semantic Framework for Analyzing Tense, Aspect and Mood: An Application to the Ranges of Polysemy of -Xr, -Dir and -∅ in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Antwerp University.
  31. Willet, Thomas
    1988 “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language (12)11: 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  32. Wolfson, Nessa
    1979 “The Conversational Historical Present Alternation.” Language55(1): 168–182. 10.2307/412521
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412521 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21058.kur
Loading
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