Article published in:
Reflections on Constructions across Grammars
Edited by Martin Hilpert and Jan-Ola Östman
[Constructions and Frames 6:2] 2014
► pp. 143–169

On the borrowability of subject pronoun constructions in Turkish–Dutch contact

| Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies
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.
Keywords: language change, usage-based approaches, constructions, Dutch, subject pronouns, Turkish
Published online: 30 March 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.02dog
References

References

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
Aikhenvald, A.Y., & Dixon, R.M.W.
(2001) Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Backus, A.
(2004) Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 179–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another? International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 307–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolonyai, A.
2000 Elective affinities: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its structural consequences. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 81–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Bullock, B., & Toribio, A.J.
(2004) Introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 303–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Campbell, L.
(1993) On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing. In H. Aartsen & R.J. Jeffers (Eds.), Historical linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 91–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow (Essex): Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (pp. 91–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 26, 543–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Doğruöz, A.S., & Backus, A.
(2007) Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of Change? International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(2), 185–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of on-going contact induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enç, M.
(1986) Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S.
(2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 16, 49–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J-O.
(2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Göksel, A., & Özsoy, A.S.
(2003) dA: A focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua, 113, 1143–1167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gürel, A.
(2006) L2 acquisition of pragmatic and syntactic constraints in the use of overt and null subject pronouns. In R. Slabakova, S.A. Montrul & P. Prevost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White (pp. 259–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N.
(2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. 3. (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manetta, E.
(2007) Unexpected left dislocation: An English corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1029–1035. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Ono, T., & Thompson, S.A.
(2003) Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku ‘I’: They’re not just pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 321–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Öztürk, B.
(2002) Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In E. Erguvanli-Taylan (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp. 239–259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 30, 371–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 90, 97–129.Google Scholar
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
Polinsky, M.
(1995) Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14(1/2), 87–123.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J.
(2001) Turkish in European societies. Lingua E Stile, XXXVI, 317–334.Google Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2009) Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences ? L2 pronominal subjects and syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rostila, J.
(2006) Storage as a way to grammaticalization. Constructions, 1, 1–59.Google Scholar
Sanchez, L.
(2004) Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 147–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 4, 9–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C.
(1994) Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F.
(2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S.G., & Kaufman, T.
(1988) Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.G.
(2001) Language contact: An introduction. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Toribio, A.J.
(2004) Convergence of as an optimizing strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 165–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 37 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 april 2021. 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.