On the borrowability of subject pronoun constructions in Turkish–Dutch contact
Turkish spoken in the Netherlands (NL-Turkish) sounds different in comparison to Turkish spoken in Turkey (TR-Turkish) due to Dutch influence. In addition to borrowed Dutch words/phrases, Dutch influence on NL-Turkish is also observed through literally translated constructions. This study investigates the Dutch influence on NL-Turkish constructions with subject pronouns. Analyses of NL-Turkish and TR-Turkish spoken corpora do not reveal any significant differences in terms of subject pronoun frequency. However, qualitative analysis of the data reveals some unconventional cases of subject pronoun use in NL-Turkish. In these cases, subject pronouns do not lead to unconventionality on their own but as parts of larger constructions that are copied from Dutch as chunks. Following the principles of usage-based approaches, these unconventional constructions are further analyzed in terms of their level of schematicity and flexibility.
References (69)
Aarsen, J
(
1994)
Relating two events in two languages: Acquisition of cohesive devices by Turkish-Dutch bilingual children at school age, Ph.D. thesis. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aikhenvald, A.Y., & Dixon, R.M.W
(
2001)
Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Akıncı, M.A., & Backus, A
(
2005)
The structure and the role of code-switching in Turkish-French conversations. In
J.N. Jorgensen,
S. Talayman &
C. Dabelsteen (Eds.),
Languaging and language practices (pp. 156–166). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Backus, A
(
2004)
Convergence as a mechanism of language change.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 71, 179–181.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Backus, A
(
2005)
Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another? International Journal of Bilingualism, 91, 307–340.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolonyai, A
2000 Elective affinities: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its structural consequences.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 41, 81–106.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeschoten, H.E
(
1994)
Second language influence on first language acquisition: Turkish children in Germany. In
G. Extra &
L. Verhoeven (Eds.),
The cross-linguistic study of bilingual development (pp. 253–263). Amsterdam: North Holland.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bullock, B., & Toribio, A.J
(
2004)
Introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 81, 303–320.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J
(
2006)
From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.
Language, 821, 711–733.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J.L., & Beckner, C
(
2010)
Usage-based theory. In
B. Heine &
H. Narrog (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 827–856). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
CBS
(
2011)
Central Bureau voor Statistiek.
[URL]
Croft, W
(
2000)
Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow (Essex): Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
2001)
Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W., & Cruse, A
(
2004)
Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidson, B
(
1996)
‘Pragmatic weight’ and Spanish subject pronouns: The pragmatic and discourse uses of ‘tu’ and ‘yo’ in spoken Madrid Spanish.
Journal of Pragmatics, 261, 543–565.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doğruöz, A.S
(
2007)
Synchronic variation and diachronic change in Dutch Turkish: A corpus based analysis, Ph.D. Thesis. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doğruöz, A.S., & Backus, A
(
2007)
Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of Change? International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(2), 185–220.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doğruöz, A.S., & Backus, A
(
2009)
Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of on-going contact induced change.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–63.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E
(
1979)
The function of word order in Turkish grammar, Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA.
Erman, B., & Warren, B
(
2000)
The idiom principle and the open choice principle.
Text, 20(1), 29–62.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, N., & Levinson, S
(
2009)
The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 321, 429–492.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Flores-Ferrán, N
(
2004)
Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change, 161, 49–73.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y
(
2010)
Introduction. In
D. Geeraerts,
G. Kristiansen &
Y. Peirsman (Eds.),
Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 1–19). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A
(
1995)
Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Göksel, A., & Özsoy, A.S
(
2003)
dA: A focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish.
Lingua, 1131, 1143–1167.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T
(
2005)
Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hulk, A., & Müller, N
(
2000)
Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 31, 227–244.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johanson, L
(
2000)
Turkic indirectives. In
L. Johanson &
B. Utas (Eds.),
Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages (pp. 61–89). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L.A
(
2012)
Constructional meaning and compositionality. In
C. Maienborn,
K. von Heusinger &
P. Portner (Eds.),
Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 31. (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kerslake, C
(
1987)
Noun phrase deletion and pronominalization in Turkish. In
H.E. Boeschoten &
L.T. Verhoeven (Eds.),
Studies on modern Turkish: Proceedings of Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 91–103). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R
(
2008)
Introduction. Cognitive sociolinguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In
G. Kristiansen &
R. Dirven (Eds.),
Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 1–21). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K
(
1994)
Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lapidus, N., & Otheguy, R
(
2005)
Contact induced change? Overt nonspecific Ellos in Spanish in New York. In
L. Sayahi &
M. Westmoreland (Eds.),
Selected Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics (pp. 67–75). Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leino, J., & Östman, J-O
(
2005)
Constructions and variability. In
M. Fried &
H.C. Boas (Eds.),
Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Manetta, E
(
2007)
Unexpected left dislocation: An English corpus study.
Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 1029–1035.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milroy, J
(
2003)
On the role of speaker in language change. In
R. Hickey (Ed.),
Motives for language change (pp. 143–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S
(
2004)
Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oliveira, M
(
2000)
The pronominal subject in Italian and Brazilian Portugese. In
M.A. Kato &
E.V. Negrão (Eds.),
Brazilian Portugese and the null subject parameter (pp. 37–53). Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlag,
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ono, T., & Thompson, S.A
(
2003)
Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku ‘I’: They’re not just pronouns.
Cognitive Linguistics, 141, 321–347.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Özcan, F.H, Keçik, I., Topbaş, S., & Konrot, A
(
2000)
A comparative study in pronominal use in the discourse of monolingual Turkish speaking and bilingual Turkish-Danish speaking children. In
A. Holmen &
J.N. Jorgensen (Eds.),
Det er conversation 801 değil mi? Perspectives on the bilingualism of Turkish speaking children and adolescents in North Western Europe (pp. 101–121). Copenhagen: Denmarks Larerhojskoles Reproduktionafdeling.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Özsoy, A.S
(
1987)
The null subject parameter and Turkish. In
Hendrik E. Boeschoten &
Ludo T. Verhoeven (Eds.),
Studies on modern Turkish: Proceedings of The Third Conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 82–90). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paradis, J., & Navarro, S
(
2003)
Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of input? Journal of Child Language, 301, 371–393.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pfaff, C.W
(
1992)
Turkish in contact with German: Language maintenance and loss among immigrant children in West Berlin.
International Journal of Sociology of Language, 901, 97–129.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pease-Alvarez, L., Hakuta, K., & Bayley, R
(
1996)
Spanish proficiency and language use in a California Mexico community.
Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 15(1/2), 137–151.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Polinsky, M
(
1995)
Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss.
Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14(1/2), 87–123.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rehbein, J
(
2001)
Turkish in European societies.
Lingua E Stile, XXXVI1, 317–334.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rothman, J
(
2009)
Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences ? L2 pronominal subjects and syntax-pragmatics interface.
Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 951–973.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rostila, J
(
2006)
Storage as a way to grammaticalization.
Constructions, 11, 1–59.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanchez, L
(
2004)
Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 71, 147–162.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schaufeli, A
(
1991)
Turkish in an immigrant setting: A comparative study of the first language of monolingual and bilingual Turkish children, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Schmitt, E
(
2000)
Overt and covert codeswitching in immigrant children from Russia.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 41, 9–28.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silva-Corvalán, C
(
1994)
Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F
(
2006)
Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.
Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thomason, S.G., & Kaufman, T
(
1988)
Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thomason, S.G
(
2001)
Language contact: An introduction. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, M
(
2003)
Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toribio, A.J
(
2004)
Convergence of as an optimizing strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 71, 165–173.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsimpli, I.M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F
(
2004)
First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 257–277.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turan, Ü. D
(
1996)
Null versus overt subjects in Turkish discourse: A centering analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Weinreich, U
(
1953)
Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yağmur, K., & van de Vijver, F
(
2012)
Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1–21.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Barking, Marie, Ad Backus & Maria Mos
2022.
Individual corpus data predict variation in judgments: testing the usage-based nature of mental representations in a language transfer setting.
Cognitive Linguistics 33:3
► pp. 481 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.