Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 15:2 (2024) ► pp.275–294

Common ground management via evidential markers in Turkish

ORCID logo | Bartın University

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.

Keywords: Turkish evidentials, Common Ground, epistemic primacy, shared information, intersubjectivity, multiple perspectives
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Epistemic primacy and common ground (management)
  • 2.Evidentiality in Turkish
  • 3.CG Management in Turkish
    • 3.1Data and methodology
    • 3.2Epistemic primacy via -mIş/ -DI alternation
    • 3.3Common ground management with -mIştI
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21058.kur
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2003 “Evidentiality in Typological Perspective.” In Studies in Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aksan, Mustafa and Yeşim Aksan
2018 “Linguistic Corpora: A View from Turkish”. In Studies in Turkish Language Processing, ed. by Kemal Oflazer and Murat Saraçlar, 301–327. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan and Dan I. Slobin
1986 “A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish”. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 159–167. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan
1988 The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anlı, Müge host and Ahmet Şirin
(director) 15 October 2021 Müge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert 15 Ekim 2021. In Taner Canlı (executive producer), Müge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert. Mavi Klaket. Available at [URL]. Accessed on 20 October 2021.
Bergqvist, Henrik
2017 “The Role of ‘Perspective’ in Epistemic Marking.” Lingua 186–1871: 5–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnik, John M. Levine and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Assosication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1997 “Mirativity: the Grammatical Marking of Unexpected Information.” Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “The Mirative and Evidentiality.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (3): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser
2000 “Semi-grammaticalized Modality in Turkish”. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, ed. by Aslı Göksel and Celia Kerslake, 113–143. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick
2005 “View with a View: Towards a Typologoy of Multiple Perspective.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 311: 93–120.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T.
2002 Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Gipper, Sonja
2015 “(Inter)subjectivity in Interaction: Investigating (Inter)subjective Meanings“ STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68 (2): 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake
2005 Turkish, A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York, N.Y.: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grzech, Karolina
2020a “Managing Common Ground with Epistemic Marking: ‘Evidential’ Markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their Functions in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1681: 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b “Epistemic Primacy, Common Ground Management, and Epistemic Perspective.” In Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement, ed. by Henrik Berqgvist and Seppo Kittilä, 23–60. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kökpınar-Kaya, Emel
2014 An Analysis of Conversational Narratives in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Hacettepe University.
Krifka, Manfred
2007 “Basic Notions of Information Structure.” In The notions of information structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow and Manfred Krifka, 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. (Working Papers of the SFB 632, 6)Google Scholar
Kuram, Kadri
2022 “A Morpho-pragmatic Classification of Turkish TAM markers.” Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 33 (2): 145–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William and Joshua Waletzky
1967 “Narrative Analysis”. In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. by June Helm, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press. (Reprinted 1997 in Journal of Narrative and Life History 71:3–38.)Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, Alan
2020 “Egophoricity, Engagement, and the Centring of Subjectivity.” In Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement, ed. by Henrik Bergqvist and Seppo Kittilä, 61–93. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd and Elisabeth Norcliffe
2017 “Evidentiality and Interrogativity”. Lingua 1861: 120–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1981 “Tense Variation in Narrative”. Language 57(1): 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. and Ayhan Aksu
1982 “Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential”. In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Paul J. Hopper, 185–200. Amsteredam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 251: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig
2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
Willet, Thomas
1988 “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language (12)11: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa
1979 “The Conversational Historical Present Alternation.” Language 55(1): 168–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar