Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 135–165

Chapter 6
Connectivity of wh in bilingual Turkish

Developing a corpus-pragmatic filtering method

| Adam Mickiewicz University
| Uppsala University

This study tests a hypothesis regarding the connectivity of wh-constructions in spoken discourse data of Turkish-German bilingual children (the ENDFAS/SKOBI corpus), focusing on constructions involving one verbum dicendi: söyle‑ ‘say, tell, verbalise, utter’. It develops a corpus-pragmatic filtering method, based on typological parameters such as headedness and wh-fronting as well as spoken language phenomena related to syntactic and prosodic integration. These criteria are applied in a stepwise manner to identify a subset of findings with potential for grammatical innovation.

Keywords: wh, connectivity, interrogativity, Turkish, German, bilingualism, language contact, verbum dicendi, discourse, clause combining, spoken language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Wh and connectivity
  • 3.Wh-constructions in our data
  • 4.Wh-constructions related to verba dicendi and sentiendi
    • 4.1Overall picture
    • 4.2Two verba dicendi: De‑ ‘say’ and söyle‑ ‘say, tell, verbalise, utter’
    • 4.3Distribution of de‑ ‘say’ and söyle‑ ‘say, tell, verbalise, utter’ in our data
    • 4.4Direct speech phenomena with söyle‑ ‘say, tell, verbalise, utter’ in the bilingual sample
  • 5.Juxtaposed finite wh-constructions in circumscribing function
    • 5.1Deixis
    • 5.2Utterance boundaries
    • 5.3Breaks
    • 5.4Preposed versus postposed wh‑construction
    • 5.5In-situ versus fronted wh‑element
    • 5.6Distribution of formal criteria across groups
  • 6.A closer look at the remaining candidates
  • 7.Preliminary results and desiderata
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.06her
References
Bybee, Joan L.
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: Chicago of University Press.Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á.
2010 Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. In Turcology in Mainz/ Turkologie in Mainz, Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds), 107–122. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad
1989 Zur Struktur der psychoanalytischen “Deutung” (On the structure of psychoanalytic “interpretation”). In Medizinische und therapeutische Kommunikation. Diskursanalytische Untersuchungen, Konrad Ehlich, Armin Koerfer, Angelika Redder & Ruediger Weingarten (eds), 210–227. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad & Rehbein, Jochen
1976 Halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskriptionen (HIAT) (Semi-interpretative working transcriptions (HIAT)). Linguistische Berichte 45: 21–41.Google Scholar
1979 Sprachliche Handlungsmuster (Patterns of linguistic actions). In Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften, Hans-Georg Soeffners (ed), 243–274. Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986 Muster und Institution: Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation (Pattern and institution: Studies on school communication). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herkenrath, Annette
2011 Wh-Konstruktionen im Türkischen (Wh-constructions in Turkish). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Herkenrath, Annette & Karakoç, Birsel
2007 Zur Morphosyntax äußerungsinterner Konnektivität bei mono- und bilingualen türkischen Kindern (On the morphosyntax of utterance-internal connectivity in mono- and bilingual Turkish children). In Einheit und Vielfalt in der türkischen Welt: Materialien der 5. Deutschen Turkologenkonferenz, Universität Mainz, 4.–7. Oktober 2002, Hendrik Boeschoten & Heidi Stein (eds), 131–160. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Herkenrath, Annette, Karakoç, Birsel & Rehbein, Jochen
2003 Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish: Aspects of Turkish-German bilingual children’s language use. In (In)Vulnerable Domains in Bilingualism [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 1], Natascha Müller (ed), 221–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herkenrath, Annette & Rehbein, Jochen
2012 Pragmatic corpus analysis. In Multilingual Corpora and Multilingual Corpus Analysis [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 14], Thomas Schmidt & Kai Wörner (eds), 123–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 Emergent grammar. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, Berkeley, CA, Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds), 139–157. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars
1975 Gesprochenes Türkisch als Forschungsobjekt (Spoken Turkish as an object of research). Materialia Turcica 1: 1–8.Google Scholar
1993 Typen kausaler Satzverbindungen im Türkischen (Types of causal clause combining in Turkish). Journal of Turkology (Szeged) 2: 213–267.Google Scholar
2002 Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
2013 Selection of subjunctors in Turkic non-finite complement clauses. Bilig 67: 73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Turkic [Cambridge Language Surveys]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karakoç, Birsel & Herkenrath, Annette
2016 Clausal complementation in Turkish and Noghay in a semantic perspective. In Complementizer Semantics in European Languages, Peter Kehayov & Kasper Boye (eds), 619–664. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Mildred Lucille
1978 The Functions of Reported Speech in Discourse. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim & Fernandez-Vest, M. M. Jocelyne
2006 Spoken and written language. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marica L. Schwartz (eds), 9–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2015 Discourse and grammar. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 11–41. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Redder, Angelika
1990 Grammatiktheorie und sprachliches Handeln: “denn” und “da” (Grammatical theory and linguistic action: “denn” and “da”). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Sprachwissen als handlungspraktisches Bewusstsein: Eine funktional-pragmatische Diskussion (Linguistic knowledge as action-practical awareness: A functional-pragmatic discussion). Didaktik Deutsch 5: 60–76.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen
1984 Remarks on the empirical analysis of action and speech: The case of question sequences in classroom discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 Institutionelle Veränderungen: Fokustätigkeit, Fragen und sprachliche Muster am Beispiel einer Geschichts- und Biologiestunde (Institutional changes: Focusing, questions and linguistic patterns on the example of a history and a biology lesson). In Interaktionsanalysen in pädagogischer Absicht, Rainer Kokemohr & Winfried Marotzki (eds), 11–46. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1999a Konnektivität im Kontrast: Zu Struktur und Funktion türkischer Konverbien und deutscher Konjunktionen, mit Blick auf ihre Verwendung durch monolinguale und bilinguale Kinder (Connectivity in contrast: On the structure and function of Turkish converbs and German conjunctions, with a look at their use by monolingual and bilingual children). In Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich, Lars Johanson & Jochen Rehbein (eds), 189–244. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1999b Zum Modus von Äußerungen (On the mood of utterances). In Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, Angelika Redder & Jochen Rehbein (eds), 91–142. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2007 Matrix constructions. In Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 5], Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein & Lukas Pietsch (eds), 419–447. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Rehbein-ENDFAS (Die Entwicklung narrativer Diskursfähigkeiten im Deutschen und Türkischen in Familie und Schule). Universität Hamburg, EXMARaLDA: SFB 538–Korpora. [URL] (25 July 2022).
Rehbein, Jochen & Herkenrath, Annette
2015 Converbs in monolingual and bilingual Turkish. In Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics, Deniz Zeyrek, Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek, Ufuk Ataş & Jochen Rehbein (eds), 493–513. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen, Herkenrath, Annette & Karakoç, Birsel
2009a Rehbein-SKOBI (Sprachliche Konnektivität bei bilingual türkisch-deutsch aufwachsenden Kindern und Jugendlichen). Universität Hamburg, EXMARaLDA: SFB 538–Korpora. [URL] (25 July 2022).
2009b On contact-induced language change of Turkish as an immigrant language. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 62(3): 171–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen, Schmidt, Thomas, Meyer, Bernd, Watzke, Franziska & Herkenrath, Annette
2004 Handbuch für das computergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT (Handbook for computer-assisted transcription according to HIAT) [Arbeitspapiere zur Mehrsprachigkeit / Working Papers in Multilingualism, Folge B, Nr. 56]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich 538 Mehrsprachigkeit.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas
2010 EXMARaLDA EXAKT Manual, Version 1.0. 26 November 2010. [URL] (15 February 2011).
Spronck, Stef & Nikitina, Tatiana
2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar