Location events in bilingual Danish and Turkish language contact A comparative analysis of location events in Danish, Turkish and bilingual use of the two languages Ramazan Dicle
Department of Linguistics M.A. Thesis 30 hp/ECTS Master program in Language Sciences with Specialization in General Linguistics (120 hp/ECTS) Spring 2013 Supervisor: Bernhard W채lchli
Location events in bilingual Danish and Turkish language contact A comparative analysis of location events in Danish, Turkish and bilingual use of the two languages
Abstract Location events can be mainly described as the relationship setting up the location of a particular object(s) in relation to the other object(s). Location events are akin to motion events whose typology is well studied in the literature especially in the work of Talmy (1991, 2000), but differ from them in that â€˜motion eventsâ€™ focuses on the motion, while location events focuses on the spatial relationships between the Figure, object that is being located, and the Ground, object(s) that conform to the location of the Figure. Languages express these locative relationships differently. This study analyzes how two typologically different languages, Turkish and Danish, express the location events and how bilingual speakers of these two languages express location events in both Danish and Turkish. The study utilizes quantitative and qualitative tools to analyze the data gathered from the picture based elicitation from the monolingual and bilingual speakers. The study suggests that language contact in bilingual Turkish and Danish has a major role in the operating typology of the two languages and in the encoding of the spatial relationships in location events. Keywords
location events, bilingualism, language contact, typology, bilingual corpus
Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 4 2. Locative relationships ......................................................................... 4 2.1. Basics concepts ........................................................................................... 5 2.2. Static locative events vs dynamic motion events .............................................. 5
3. Methodology ........................................................................................ 8 3.1. Informants .................................................................................................. 9 3.2. Data collection ............................................................................................11 3.3. Data analysis..............................................................................................12
4. Location Events ................................................................................. 13 4.1. Locative Verbs ............................................................................................14 4.2. Resultatives ...............................................................................................29 4.2.1. Resultatives in Danish............................................................................30 4.2.2. Resultatives in Turkish ...........................................................................37 4.3. Adpositions and case ...................................................................................41 4.3.1. Prepositions in Danish............................................................................41 4.3.2. Postpositions and case in Turkish ............................................................44
5. Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................ 47 References ............................................................................................ 49 Appendixes............................................................................................ 52 Appendix I: Questionnaire Form ..........................................................................52 Appendix II: SSP-Questionnaire ..........................................................................54 Appendix III: Prepositions in the data ..................................................................56 Appendix IV: Postpositions and case in the data ....................................................57
List of Tables Table 1: Types of verbs in the basic locative constructions (BLC), adapted from Ameka & Levinson (2007: 863-864). ......................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: The distribution of bilinguals across cities .................................................................. 9 Table 3: Language choice in bilingual informants ................................................................... 10 Table 4: Language use of bilingual informants ........................................................................ 10 Table5: The distribution of the informants .............................................................................. 11 Table 6: The frequency analysis and the diversity index analysis of the questionnaire data ... 14 Table 7: The distribution of pictures across Danish Locative verbs and the bilingual use ...... 17 Table 8: Aspect marking changes in dynamic vs. stative meaning .......................................... 20 Table 9: The distribution of pictures across Turkish Locative verbs and the bilingual use ..... 25 Table 10: the frequency of objective resultative constructions for static location by native Danish....................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 11: the frequency of objective resultative constructions for static location by bilinguals .................................................................................................................................................. 32 Table 12: the frequency of resultatives in the native use ......................................................... 39 Table 13: the frequency of resultative construction types in bilingual use of Turkish ............ 40 Table 14: Most frequent sentence structure for static locative construction in native Danish . 41 Table 15: the types of prepositions and adverbs used in native use of Danish ........................ 42 Table 16: The summary of the prepositions and adverbs used by native Danish .................... 43 Table 17: The summary of the prepositions and adverbs used by bilingual Danish ................ 43 Table 18: Postpositions in Turkish, adapted from Goksel & Kerslake (2005:250) ................. 44 Table 19: the frequency of postpositions in native use of Turkish .......................................... 46 Table 20: the frequency of postpositions in bilingual use of Turkish ...................................... 46
List of figures and pictures Figure 1: The frequency of static Locative verbs in the native use of Danish ......................... 16 Figure 2: The frequency of static Locative verbs in Danish by bilinguals .............................. 18 Picture 1: Scene 21 in Picture Questionnaire, the key in keyhole ............................................ 18 Figure 3: The frequency of static Locative verbs in native use of Turkish .............................. 21 Picture 2: Scene 10 in picture questionnaire data, mouse hanging .......................................... 23 Picture 3: Scene 8 in Picture Questionnaire, the broom on the floor horizontal ...................... 23 Figure 5: The frequency of static Locative verbs in bilingual use of Turkish ......................... 26 Figure 6: The frequency of subjective resultative finite verbs in bilingual and native Turkish .................................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 7: The frequency of objective resultatives used with the være ‘be’ copula .................. 31 Figure 8: the frequency of participles in copular resultatives .................................................. 34
Abreviations ABL ablative case ACC accusative case ADJ adjective/adjectival/adjectivizer ADV adverb/adverbializer AUX auxiliary verb CAUS causative marker COP copula DAT dative case DEF definite DET determiner EV/PF evidential/perfective GEN genitive case GM generalizing modality INDEF indefinite INTR intransitive LOC locative case N noun PART participle PASS passive PF perfective PL plural POSS possessive PROG progressive REC reciprocal REF reflexive SG singular TR transitive Ă˜ zero marking
1. Introduction In recent years, the linguistic expression of spatial relationships has attracted considerable attention in linguistic research. Most of these research centered on the use of prepositions and related semantics (i.e. Hersekovits 1986; Vandeloise 1986; Tyler & Evans 2003; Coventry and Garrod 2004; Carlson & Covey 2005; Ashley & Carlson 2007; Tutton 2011 and others). Besides the use of prepositions, spatial information can be analyzed under two general groups; the dynamic motion events such as Ela climbed up the tree and static location events like Ela is in the rest room. The dynamic motion events have been subject to many studies taking up a cross-linguistic analysis influenced by Talmyâ€™s framework (1991, 2000) on language typology which divides languages into verb-framed vs. satellite-framed. However, the static location events have not gained the same amount of attention as the dynamic motion events. This study aims to contribute to this less studied second group with a comparative analysis of two languages, namely Turkish and Danish, which play the two ends of the dichotomy mentioned in motion event typology as Turkish is the verb-framed language and Danish is the satellite-framed language. Typological differences between two languages are a particular challenge for bilingual speakers of languages in contact. Bilinguals cannot at the same time use similar structures in both languages they speak and remain congruent in their languages use to the norms of monolingual or predominantly monolingual speaker populations of the two languages. The question thus arises to what extent bilinguals differ in their expression of location events from predominantly monolingual speaker populations and to what extent the bilingual production in the two typologically different languages converges. The aim of this research is manifold. First, it aims to analyze how the monolinguals of these two languages express static locative events; second, it aims to study the bilingual version of the static locative events in two languages; third, it analyzes the differences between the monolingual and bilingual use of language in the locative events; next, it aims to see whether these differences are result of language change or not; lastly, how these differences can be explained from a typological point of view. In comparison with earlier work, this study is characterized by an emphasis on the antagonism of typologies in bilingualsâ€™ minds.
2. Locative relationships This study begins with an introduction of the basic concepts used for encoding locative relationships. First of all, it is imperative to explain the differences in the locative relationship between the object described in the motion event and the object in the location event.
2.1. Basics concepts Location events can be broadly described as the relationship establishing the location of an object or several objects in relation to the other object(s). Location events takes name from ‘motion events’ in the pioneering studies by Talmy (1991, 2000) who has set the trigger off for a countless number of studies on motion event typology (i.e. Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2004; Naigles et al. 1998; Oh 2003; Ohara 2000; Papafragou et al. 2002; Özçalıskan & Slobin 1999a, 2000a, b, 2003; Slobin 1996, 1997, 2004; Kopecka and Pourcel 2005; Kopecka 2006; Lemmens 2005; Slobin 2006,etc.). However, location events, unlike motion events, have not been examined in the same detail as it is in motion events. Therefore, the definition of the term ‘location event’ seems much alike as Talmy (2000) puts it for motion events: “The basic Motion event consists of one object (the Figure) moving or located with respect to another object (the reference object or the Ground) (Talmy 2000: 25)”. The main point to mention is that Talmy tackles the static locative relationships as a type of Motion event. That is, “we treat a situation containing motion and the continuation of a stationary location alike as a Motion event” (Talmy 2000: 25). The motion event consists of four main components: Firstly, the object getting located is termed as the Figure and is defined as “the salient moving or stationary object in a Motion event whose path or site is the relevant issue” (Talmy 2000: 153). Secondly, the Figure’s location is preordained in relation to the Ground, “the reference object in a Motion event, with respect to which the Figure’s path/site is characterized” (Talmy 2000: 154). Thirdly, the Path is “the variety of paths followed or sites occupied by the Figure object in a Motion event” (Talmy 2000: 154). That is to say, the Path has the natural locative relationship between the Figure and the Ground. Lastly, the main component of a Motion event is the ‘Motion’ itself which expresses the presence of the event. Example (1) epitomizes these four components
the chair. (Scene 1)
In example (1), the book is the Figure as it is the object which is being located. The chair is the reference object, and thus the Ground. The two are syntactically linked by the copular verb is, which encodes Motion, and the preposition under which express the Path.
2.2. Static locative events vs dynamic motion events According to Talmy, Motion events express ‘both the dynamic motion event and the static locative relationships’ (Tutton 2013:28), which depicts the interdependency of the dynamic and static spatial relationship. This interdependency is brought to focus by Vandeloise (2006:140) who suggests that “immobility is always the result of equilibrium between two opposite forces”. With this, Vandeloise (2006) suggests that immobility is maintained by the dependent relationship between the motion and the state, which implies the dynamic 5
essentiality of locative dispositions. However, it is still imperative to differentiate between dynamic motion events and static locative events as motion events also focus the attention to the Figure. In his pioneering works, Talmy (1991, 2000) makes a distinction between ‘verb-framed’ and ‘satellite framed’ languages. The difference between the two tackles the structural proportion of the construction and designates the distribution of spatial information within Path and between the morpho-syntactic elements and lexical items. In other words, the Path is the central item. If a language conflates or lexicalises the Path with the Motion, it is classified as verb-framed; if it conflates the Path with a satellite1, then it is classified as satellite-framed language. As long as the dynamic motion events are considered, French is verb-framed while English is satellite- framed language, example (2) illustrates the difference between the two, taken from Tutton (2013:29).
In (2), central item Path is conflated with verb partir in French and it is conflated with satellite away in English. However, recent studies such as Beavers et al (2010) show that this single dichotomy of verb-framed vs satellite-framed language is insufficient to explain the way languages express dynamic motion events. Kopecka (2006) suggests that Path can be encoded both in the verb and in some affixes such as path expressing morpheme em-. When affixed to the noun boutille ‘bottle’, it becomes the verb emboutiller ‘to bottle’. Slobin (2006) suggests a third category called equipolently-framed languages for the shortcoming of the verb-framed vs satellite-framed language dichotomy. As an example to those languages, Mandarin Chineese is stated to conflate manner and path in morphemes that are only affixed to verbs, hence puts them out of the verb-framed vs satellite-framed language dichotomy. As for the locative events, the verb-framed vs satellite-framed language dichotomy becomes more problematic. For example, as stated before English and French belong to either of the ends, therefore, French is supposed to express Path in verb while English is supposed to express it in a satellite. See the examples (3) and (4), which cross the borders of the verbframed vs satellite-framed language dichotomy, examples are taken from Tutton (2013:30).
’Satellite’ is defined by Talmy (2000:102) as “any constituent other than a noun-phrase or prepositionalphrase complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root” 6
the ball was in the box for three hours. Talmy (2000:55)
In (3), the Path is expressed with the preposition dans ‘in’, which is habitual of French to express Path with prepositions in static locative events (see Borillo 1998:v). On the other hand, in (4), there is no satellite according Talmyan definition of it, however, it is the preposition which carries the meaning of the Path in English. As seen from the two examples, Talmy’s dichotomy is quite problematic in the expression of static locative events. The presence of static locative relationship or Talmy’s ‘Motion’ is mostly expressed by a stative verb like etre ‘be’ copula in French and be copula in English(see Hendriks et al 2004; Ameka and Levinson 2007). Here, this very study aims to study how two very divergent languages Turkish and Danish express the static locative events, as the former language belongs to verb-framed language and the latter is satellite-framed language in Talmyan typology. More importantly, it also tries to show how the bilinguals of Danish and Turkish express the static locative events, which prospects further data and discussions in the area and brings the bilingual aspect on the typological analysis of static locative events. On their analysis on contrastive typological analysis on locative verbs across languages, Ameka and Levinson (2007) suggest that a potential response to the question of ‘where is an entity X’ when presented with a visual stimuli’ gives the locational information about the subject –the entity X- and its relation to the path. The impromptu answer for such the question results in the basic locative construction (BLC). When expressing the relation between the Figure and the Ground, languages have been observed to make use of various verbs to encode locative information. Ameka and Levinson (2007) classify the languages according to the number of verbs they can express the basic locative construction as in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of verbs in the basic locative constructions (BLC), adapted from Ameka & Levinson (2007: 863-864). Type 1:
No verb (Saliba)
One verb (or suppletion)
a) opula (English, Tamil, hukchi, Tiriy ) b) Locative (+Existential) verb (Japanese, Ewe, Yukatek, Lavukaleve)
Small set of verbs (3-7 verbs)
a) Posture verbs (Arrernte, Dutch, Goemai) b) Ground space indicating verbs (Tidore)
Large set of verbs (9-100 verbs) (Tzeltal, Zapotec, German, Laz, Sɛkpɛle)
For this study, the bilinguals and monolinguals of Danish and Turkish were asked to respond to ‘What it the thing (the entity X) is doing?’ which focuses rather on the verbal information about the action in location. Prompted with a question similar to the one by Ameka and Levinson (2007), monolingual informants of this study verify the types of verbs in BLC. It has been observed that Danish belongs to Type 3 as it has a small set of verbs such as stå, sidde, ligge, hænge ‘stand, sit, lie, hang’and Turkish belongs to Type 2 as it has one verb dur‘stand’ and a copular locative case -DA. onsidering Ameka and Levinson’s (2007) types of locative verbs and the Simpson Diversity Index results on questionnaire data on Table 6, however, the Danish- Turkish bilingual use of language seems to be placed between Type 2 and Type 3.
3. Methodology Before elaborating on the methodology used in this study, it is crucial to discuss what is meant by ‘bilingual’ as this term is used in many different ways in the literature. For this study, a functional approach has been taken on the notion of ‘bilingual’. “Bilingual” refers to the individual who manages to process two languages on two levels: functional and formal. In the former, the bilingual is expected to be able to present all that is intended to be expressed; in the latter the individual is supposed to display all the surface forms that are present in the language (see Hamers & Blanc 1989:8). Regarding the locative events, the bilingual is supposed to express the any locative relationship without any difficulty in both languages.
Besides, bilinguals use both languages and shift between languages in daily use. Regarding the level of competency, the bilingual is supposed to complete certain degree of education and be able to pursue social contact to the both languages.
3.1. Informants In order to find the expected bilingual that can functionally and formally epitomize a true ‘bilingual’, Turkish and Danish bilingual schools are chosen from three largest cities in Denmark .The names and the cities of the bilingual schools are given as follows: Århus Nilen Privatskole (primary school), Odense Fyn Privatskole (primary school), Copenhagen Hayskole (primary school) and København Privat Gymnasium (high school). In all four schools the medium of instruction is Danish but the students also have compulsory Turkish language courses in every year for three hours a week. The bilingual informants have been selected from the 6th grade and above, which means that students are 13 years or above (see Table 1). The reason for choosing from this specific grade is that the bilinguals should have completed certain degree of Turkish so that they are able to read, write and understand the instructions. As for their Danish proficiency, the bilingual in the 6th grade and above simply implies that the language proficiency level as being at the same level at the monolinguals. The informants were requested to fill in a form in which they state their level of proficiency, the frequency of language engagement on daily basis, reading and writing habits in both languages, personal information about their birthplace, age, address including the parents’ birthplace, and lastly the frequency of language spoken (see Appendix I for the details). Table 2 summarizes some key data about the bilingual informants.
Table 2: The distribution of bilinguals across cities Aarhus Copenhagen Odense Total
Number 24 26 10 60
Female 15 15 7 37
Male 9 11 3 23
Median age 12 17 13 13
Average age 11.7 16.1 13.3 14.1
Table 2 show that female students prevail as is generally the case in bilingual schools, which is probably because female students are much better in language skills than the boys, as they also have a higher rate of completing the written tasks. 25% (n=15) students were excluded from the analysis as they couldn’t complete the questionnaire finding the task boring and/or tiring. Table 3gives a survey on the use of both languages by the bilinguals.
Table 3: Language choice in bilingual informants Always: Usually:
How often do you speak Turkish in a day?
How often do you speak Danish in a day?
How often do you use 37% Danish when you use internet or write mails/text messages etc?
How often do you use Turkish when you use internet or write mails/text messages etc?
As can be seen from Table 3, the daily use of Danish is more frequent than Turkish, which is understandable as they attend to a school where the medium of instruction is Danish and as they live in Denmark where Danish language and culture is omnipresent. All of the informants are born and raised in Denmark, 13% of the parents were born in Denmark and 87% were born in Turkey. Therefore, the use of Turkish is relatively larger than Danish at home. See Table 4 for the language use by bilingual informants. Table 4: Language use of bilingual informants Both
In which language do you express yourself best?
Which language do you talk best?
Which language do you use at home?
Table 4 shows that the bilingual informants use either both languages or only Turkish at home with innumerous exceptions, while at least in their self-perception they are more proficient in Danish than in Turkish. When asked about which language they expressed themselves best and talked best, the majority of informants opted heavily upon the use of both languages and/or only Danish, while very few of them prefer only Turkish, which signals that Danish is the major language while Turkish is the minor one. In order to see the differences between monolinguals and bilinguals, monolingual native informants were asked to participate in the same questionnaire. Table 5 illustrates the
distribution of the all informants participated in the questionnaire with a specific focus on native informants. Table5: The distribution of the informants Monolingual Danish Turkish Bilingual Total
Number 10 42 60 112
Female 7 26 37 70
Male 3 16 23 42
Median age 32 25 13 17
Average age 35.7 22.1 14.1 19
As seen in Table 4, the general distribution of females is larger than the male informants. It was not planned but that female informants turned out to be more eager/keen to participate and complete questionnaire. Unfortunately the average age is quite high in native Danish speakers in comparison to bilingual informants and native Turkish informants2. The age range of native Danish informants spans between 21 to 60 years. However, as long as the native speakers are concerned, the number is more important than the age since nativeness is the top priority. Throughout the study, the native Danish and Turkish informants who participated in the questionnaire will be referred as the ‘native’ and bilingual informants will be referred as ‘bilingual’ solely referring to the informants of the questionnaire.
3.2. Data collection Data for the linguistic background is gathered via a questionnaire form. The Questionnaire form developed for eliciting data on the language use, personal information and the engagement of language activities in daily basis and in general. The questionnaire form also notified the informants on the confidentiality of information and the instruction about the procedure of the next step. The Questionnaire form has been developed by the help of Danish, Turkish and English language teachers in three languages and by the revision of Bernhard Wälchli. As a second and most important step, data for the analysis of locative events is gathered through the Secondary State Position Questionnaire developed by Bernhard Wälchli The original picture questionnaire “consists of 52 pictures showing objects in particular positions, such as book under chair, key in hole, plug in socket, paper with nail on wall” (Wälchli 2012:261). However, the version used here is reduced to 32 pictures. The need for a shorter questionnaire derives from the need to collect data from bilinguals in two languages; 104 pictures would have been too much for the bilingual target group, it consumed too much time.
The age range for monolingual informants is quite high, which resulted from the inabilities resulting from the political problems Danish schools were currently having with the Danish government.The teachers in Danish schools were put in lockout, which indirectly affected the participation of the students in native Danish students from the volunteering primary schools to take the questionnaire. All of the sessions previously arranged for data ellicitation were unfortunately cancelled. 11
Besides, since the bilinguals serving as informants were teenagers, the similar scenes were casted out so as to keep their attention on the task. The elicitation for the bilinguals took place in the schools during the Danish and Turkish lessons as a part of course task. The informants were first shown the pictures via the use of projector. During the elicitation the language teacher and me, as the researcher were present. Voluntariness from the students is requested by the teacher and involuntary students were asked to do some other reading activities while the elicitation took place. The informants were informed about the confidentiality both in the questionnaire form and by the teacher. The elicitation from bilinguals took place in one session with two parts; in the first part the bilinguals answered the picture questionnaire in Danish and in the second part they were asked to answer it once more in Turkish with the same sequence of display. It took 20 to 25 minutes on average for each part and 40-45 minutes for the whole session. The informants wrote down their answers in the sheet attached to the questionnaire form, which has two lines for each picture so that repetition marks (´´) are avoided (see Appendix I). The native informants answered an online version of the same picture questionnaire which has instructions in three languages, namely as Turkish, English and Danish. It took 15.5 minutes on average for a native to complete the online questionnaire. 72 Danish and Turkish informants started answering the online test, but only 40 of them completed the whole questionnaire. In addition, eleven Turkish native informants from a primary school, Malazgirt İlk Öğretim Okulu, in Adiyaman, Turkey answered the written questionnaire in the same way as the bilingual informants, but – since they were monolingual – only in one language. The picture questionnaire has one single instruction asking ‘what is (are) the thing(s) doing shown with the red arrows(s)? Write in one (or two, if necessary) FULL sentence.” The arrows directed two inanimate objects whose position and location are changed in a pair of pictures. The questionnaire included 16 pairs of scenes which makes 32 pictures with different positions and location. Via the changing positions and locations, primary and secondary locative states are also differentiated so that motion for static locative events can be observed as well.
3.3. Data analysis Once the data is collected, each and every sentence was typed into Excel so that each component of the sentences can be tagged and statistically analyzed. All of the components of the scene descriptions such as locative adpositions, locative object, adverbials, converbs, and resultatives are tagged. Each informant is coded and assigned to one of the three groups; bilingual, native Danish and native Turkish. Once the data is annotated, then four types of analysis is conducted; frequency analysis, cluster analysis, diversity index analysis and qualitative analysis of most typical examples of the frequent and/or divergent component in the locative event. Throughout the whole research, statistical frequency analysis and qualitative analysis of exemplary scene descriptions are carried out. For different parts of the study cluster analysis 12
of most frequent description per scene is given in tables. For the locative verbs, Simpson’s diversity index is conducted. Simpson’s diversity index measures the diversity of a group in a particular dataset. Since the number of verbs to describe static locative relationships is limited in a language, the diversity of locative verbs can be easily calculated once the total number of possible matches are collected and counted. Once measured, the value for each group in a dataset ranges between 0 and 1. The closer the value is toward 1 the less diverse it is and if it is more closer to 0, then it means that the dataset is rather diverse.
4. Location Events Traditional grammar tackles sentence basically as two main items. One is subject and the other is the predicate. The role of the predicate is to modify the subject. From a cognitive semantic point of view, the sentence or the main clause requires two main items, namely as the Figure and the Ground. Throughout the study, the two terms will be written with a capital to mark their role in the data. These two terms are defined by Talmy (2000a:312) as: “The Figure is a moving or conceptually movable entity whose path, site, or orientation is conceived as a variable, the particular value of which is the relevant issue.” “The Ground is a reference entity, one that has a stationary setting relative to a reference frame, with respect to which the Figure’s path, site, or orientation is characterized.” The location event is the static locative relationship between the Figure and the Ground. For this study, the Figure is basically the inanimate static object that is aimed to be modified with such a predicate that expresses its locative relation to the Ground. Therefore in this section, the locative predicate will be analyzed with all of its components under three major units as:
Adpositions and case
Under the locative verbs, the primary states are analyzed, in which the main verb expresses the result/state meaning of previous action and potentially encodes the manner of location. Secondly the ‘Resultatives’ will be analyzed as they include the secondary states, which provides the source of information on the resultative state meaning. Lastly the Adpositions will be analyzed as the two languages, Danish and Turkish, uses different adpositions to express the spatial information about the locational relation between the Figure and the Ground. Danish makes use of prepositions while Turkish makes use of postpositions to express the spatial information.
4.1. Locative Verbs First of all, in order to see whether the data collected from the bilingual and monolingual informants for the questionnaire is actually different from each other, a diversity index is carried out on the data to see how diverse a bilingual speaker can be in his/her use of target languages, namely Danish and Turkish. A diversity index is a quantitative measure that reflects how many different types (such as species) there are in a dataset. At the same time, it also takes measures the evenness of the basic entities as well as their distribution among the similar types. For this very study on static locative verbs, The Simpson’s Diversity Index is used. According to Offwell Woodland & Wildlife Trust (1998), “The value of a diversity index increases both when the number of types increases and when evenness increases. For a given number of types, the value of a diversity index is maximized when all types are equally abundant.” Therefore, for a given scene, the range of verbs that can be used by the two groups, namely bilingual and native informants, can be tested on the degree of their diversity. Such an ecological sampling tool has also been used by Jessen & Cadierno (forthcoming) on motion event typology in the second language learning process. Well suited to linguistic diversity within any category as well, Simpson’s Index is a useful tool to measure the typicality and diversity within a sample database. For this study, it is used in the way Jessen & Cadierno use it to describe the diversity of locative verbs for each given scene. Table 6 displays the frequency analysis of the questionnaire data with diversity index. Table 6: The frequency analysis and the diversity index analysis of the questionnaire data native
no of verbs used
number of types of verbs used
Simpson’s diversity index mean
no of informants
no of lacking verbs
native Danish > bilingual Danish
bilingual Turkish > native Turkish
The diversity index value ranges between 0 and 1. The grater the X value is the higher Y,the number of types increases. As can be seen in Table 6, the native Danish is more diverse than native Turkish, which is quite understandable as Danish is a satellite framed language and Turkish is a verb-framed language. The former makes use of verbs to encode manner in the 14
verb while the latter encodes it at the periphery of verb (see Talmy 2000). However, bilinguals of the both languages seem to vary dramatically as compared to their native counterparts. Though the number of the types of verbs is greater than the native Danish speakers, bilingual speakers are less diverse to in the use of static locative verbs in Danish, while they are more diverse in their use of static locative verbs in Turkish. It suggested in this study that this is because of an inter-lingua state, which confluences the static locative verbs in both languages. The bilingual speaker opts for conflating manner with verb in Turkish, while detaching it in Danish. The analysis will unfold in two sections as Danish locative verbs and Turkish locative verbs. In each section first the native use of the locative verbs are presented and then the bilingual use is analyzed regarding the differences between them and the native informants. As a note for the reader(s) of this study, the term ‘native’ will be used for the Danish and Turkish monolingual informants participated in the picture questionnaire, and the term ‘bilingual’ will be used to refer the Danish-Turkish bilingual informants participated in the picture questionnaire in both Turkish and Danish. 4.1.1. Danish static locative verbs Like Dutch (Lemmens 2005), Danish has a small set of verbs for basic locative construction. There are several different locative verbs in Danish but the most commonly used ones are as stå, ligge, sidde, hænge, ‘stand, lie, sit, hang’ which focus on the manner of the location. And they express a subjective resultative state, which is a result of the previous event, in the finite verb according to Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988:7-8).The copular BE can also be used interchangeably, but it lacks the manner and it sets a direct link between the Figure and the Ground. Some other verbs are used by the native speakers of Danish in the questionnaire data, but they possess lower frequency in usage (see Figure 1). Kuteva (1999) suggests that locative verbs like ‘stand, sit, lie’ are the most frequent choice in Scandinavian languages to encode the position of physical objects which can be conceptualized as situated horizontally and vertically in space, the native informants have also been observed to use hænge ‘hang’ quite frequently. The following examples (5), (6), (7) and (8) illustrate the most frequent locative verbs in Danish by the native informants for questionnaire data:
(5) Køkkenrullen Paper roll.DEF
‘The paper roll is lying on the table’ (Scene 17)
(6) Nøglen Key.DEF
‘The key is sitting in the door.’ (Scene 21) 15
(7) Posen bag.DEF
‘The bag is hanging under the lamp.’(Scene 32)
(8) Glasset glass.DEF
‘The glass is standing on the table.’(Scene 13) Danish native speakers seem to use ligge ‘lie’ more frequently to express the locational relation between the Figure and the Ground, see Figure 1 and Table 6. Figure 1 illustrates the frequency of the verbs used in the picture questionnaire by the native Danish use. And Table 7 displays the most frequent locative verbs the native speakers use for each given scene and displays the difference between the native and bilingual choice of locative verbs in Danish.
Figure 1: The frequency of static Locative verbs in the native use of Danish
ligge,‘lie’, stå, ‘stand’, være, ’be’, hænge ‘hang’, sidde ‘sit’, flyde, ‘float’, dække, ‘cover’, svømme ‘swim’, titte ‘peek’, vende ‘wait’
As can be seen from the Figure 1 and Table 7, the use of ligge is remarkably higher than the rest of the static locative verbs. The use of copular BE is quite high with a number of 51 out of 320, scoring 15.9% of all the locative verbs. However, only 17(5%) of the total number of copular BE is used as the main verb of the locative predicate. 34 (10.6%) of the copular BE is used as the auxiliary of the resultative construction (see 4.2. Resultatives) in the locative predicate. Though the picture questionnaire has ligge ‘lie’ as the artifact verb as the prevailing 16
distribution of the positions in the questionnaire is horizontal, its domination over the other verbs is the result of its being grammaticalized as a locative copula which is the alternate of være ‘be’ in static locative expressions. Allan et al (1995:330) suggests that være ‘be’ turns into ligge ‘lie’ to express geographical location. Therefore, it is highly normal for native use to have higher use of ligge. Table 7 illustrates the distribution of locative verbs across the scenes in the picture questionnaire with a comparison of their bilingual counterparts.
Table 7: The distribution of pictures across Danish Locative verbs and the bilingual use locative verbs
flyde ‘float’ mix (være, ligge, være + p.p.)
picture 1. book under chair 3. lid on table 6. plug in bowl 8. broom on floor (horizontal) 9. mouse on table 11. egg in water 14. glass on table sideways 15. blanket on chair* 16. blanket on floor 17. paper roll sideways 28. pillows on couch, horizontal 29. oranges lined on table 30. oranges heaped on table 2. book on chair 7. broom on floor vertical 13. glass on table, reversed 18. paper roll on holder 25. bottles on floor, scattered 26. bottles on floor, packed 27. pillows on couch, vertical 4. lid on jug 5. plug in socket 21. key in keyhole 10. mouse hanging 15. blanket on chair* 22. key hanging from keyhole 31. bag on lamp, covering 32. bag on lamp, hanging 19. ball under cloth, covered 23. paper on wall, taped 24. paper on wall, nailed 12. egg in water, floating 20. ball under cover, half covered
bilingual locative verbs være ‘be’ være ‘be’ være ‘be’ ligge ‘lie’ være ‘be’ være ‘be’ ligge ‘lie’ ligge ‘lie’ ligge ‘lie’ ligge ‘lie’ ligge ‘lie’ ligge ‘lie’ være ‘be’, ligge være ‘be’ stå ‘stand stå ‘stand være ‘be’ være ‘be’ være ‘be’ stå ‘stand være ‘be’ være ‘be’ være ‘be’ hænge ligge ‘lie’ hænge hænge være ‘be’ være ‘be’ være ‘be’ være ‘be’ flyde være ‘be’
However, bilinguals opt for være ‘be’ copula over the most frequent locative verb ligge as shown in the Figure 2 and Table 7 has different tendencies regarding their frequency ratio. And very interestingly, the bilingual use of locative verbs seem to be rather larger than the native locative verbs, the degree of diversity is lower as they use være ‘be’ copula more than the other potential locative verb.
Figure 2: The frequency of static Locative verbs in Danish by bilinguals
være ‘be’, ligge ‘lie’, stå ‘stand’, hænge ‘hang’, flyde ‘float’, sidde ‘sit’, lægge ‘locate’, se ‘seem’, læne ‘lean’, dække ‘cover’, har ‘have’, vise ‘show’, falde ‘fall’, dingle ‘dangle’, glide ‘glide’, kliste ‘paste’, ONE INSTANCE VERBS3: danne ‘form’, feje ‘sweep’, gør ‘do’, lukke ‘lock’, oplade ‘upload’, røre ‘touch’, svømme ‘swim’, synke ‘sink’, syre ‘acid’, tøre ‘dry’
As in the table above, the most frequent verb for locative predicate is copular BE, which accounts for the 39.69% (n=724) of the whole locative predicates. And more interestingly only (n=212) 11.62% of them are used for resultative constructions in the predicate, which still makes it the most frequent locative verb for locative predicate, as it holds 28 % (n=512) in the dataset. Picture 1: Scene 21 in Picture Questionnaire, the key in keyhole
For example, for Picture 1 (Scene 21), all of the native informants (100%) used the Danish locative verb sidde ‘sit’ to express what the key is doing. However, of all the bilingual responses (n=57) to the same picture, 49 % of bilinguals (n=28) responded with copular BE, 3
With ‘ONE INSTAN E VERBS’, it is implied that the verbs that are only used only for once. 18
and 23% returned with ligge ‘lie’ (n=13). Only 12% of the bilingual responded with side ‘sit’ (n=7) for the same particular picture. In the following example in (9) is the native response to the Picture 1 and the bilingual responses in the examples (10) and (11):
(9) Nøglen key.DEF
The key is sitting in the lock
(10) Nøglen key.DEF
The key is in the keyhole.
(11) Nøglen key.DEF
The key is lying in the doorlock. . As can be seen from the examples above and the Table 7 and Figure 2, bilinguals prefer a neutral default verb, copular BE, which lacks manner and does not provide any locational information regarding the relationship between the Figure and the Ground. It bridges a direct locative relation between the Figure and the next eminent constituent of the locative predicate, like the prepositional phrase, the resultative or the adverbial which becomes more salient in the locative predicate (for further discussion and examples, see the Locative resultatives and locative prepositions, following). More interestingly, that the bilingual informants responded with some locative verbs which require an animate agent in the subject role for the Figure or a voice change from active to passive for the inanimate subject, see the examples (12) and (13) for bilingual use and (14) for its native use:
(12) Papiret paper.DEF
‘The paper is pasting on the wall’ (Scene 23)
(13) Papier paper
‘The paper is pasting on the wall’ (Scene 23)
‘The paper is glued up on the wall.’ (Scene 23)
In examples (12) and (13), the verb kliste is in an active voice, which functions as a reflexive verb whose two arguments (agent and patient) are identical. However in native Danish, the verb kliste ‘paste’ calls for a copular to indicate resultative/static option, which is called ‘periphrastic mood’ by Heltoft & Jakobsen (1996:213) to differentiate between the dynamic and the resultative/static option as a requirement of Danish copular morphology just as shown in the example (14). The past participle form of kliste differentiates between the arguments and modifies the verb with objective resultative, in which the Figure entity is the patient rather than the agent.
4.1.2. Turkish Static Locative Verbs In Turkish, the several posture verbs (i.e sit, stand, lie) and psychological (i.e know, think etc.) state verbs can indicate either a dynamic (event) or a stative (state) meaning depending on aspect. According to Göksel & Kerslake (2005) progressive form of posture verbs (i.e yatıyor ‘lying’) marks the stative meaning while the perfective form (i.e yattı ‘lied’ marks the dynamic meaning. Here are some examples illustrating the differences in aspectual marking, adapted from Göksel & Kerslake (2005: 334):
Table 8: Aspect marking changes in dynamic vs. stative meaning Dynamic (event)
‘lie down’, ‘go to bed’
‘lie’, ‘be in bed’
Göksel & Kerslake (2005) and previous grammars on Turkish do not differentiate between the animate and inanimate agents of state verbs, the overall analyses are based on the animate entities. Subsequently, when asked for defining the static action of an inanimate subject, native speakers of Turkish largely used dur- ‘stand’ and the copular BE in the static locative predicates as in the examples in (15), (16) and (17). The other types of similar verbs that hold a dual dynamic/static meaning have been observed to have a remarkably low frequency (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: The frequency of static Locative verbs in native use of Turkish
dur- ‘stand’, COP copular ‘be’, düs- ‘fall’, var ‘exist’, sark- ‘hang’, bekle- ‘wait’, yüz- ‘swim’, görün- ‘be seen’, cik- ‘leave’, et- ‘do’, göster- ‘show’, kapat- ‘close’, sallan- ‘swing’, yat- ‘lie’, dön,- ‘turn’, al- ‘take’), gözük- ‘seem’, ört- ‘cover’, bat- ‘sink’, sar- ‘embrace’, ac- ‘open’, bulun- ‘found’, calis- ‘try’, halde-, ol‘become’, otur- ‘sit’, ONE INSTANCE VERBS: yas- ‘live’, ara- ‘search’, dagil- ‘scatter’, dalga- ‘wave’, dayan- ‘lean’, devril‘be knocked down’, gercekles- ‘realize’, gerek- ‘necessitate’, getir- ‘bring’, gir- ‘enter’, havalan- ‘air’, ilet‘forward’, iste-‘want’, kal- ‘remain’, koru- ‘keep’, sagla-‘provide’, sakla- ‘hide’, temizle- ‘clean’, tutun‘hold on to’, yaslan- ‘lie against’.4
(15) Kitap Book
‘The book is standing under the chair.’ (Scene 1)
(16) Top Ball
‘The ball is standing under the cloth.’ (Scene 19)
As seen in Figure 3, the 0% words are ranging between 2 and 6 instances of words, that is why they are shown as 0% 21
(17) Kapak Lid
‘The lid is next to the glass.’ (Scene 3)
As seen in (17), the locative expression is predicated with the copula. The copular marking with the marker –DIr5 is optional. The use of the –DIr form of the copula has a generalizing effect. And when used solely for expressing copula, it is generally omitted (see Lewis 1967: 98). Though asked for a direct description of a particular static subject and state action, the native speakers generally used zero marked copula as in example (18):
(18) Fiş plug
‘The plug is in the glass jar.’ (Scene 6) Turkish does not bear any person marking in the predicate for third person singular. The copular marking for third person singular and plural is optional. The absence of a person marker hence expresses the 3rd person singular in Turkish predicates. Therefore, all of the Turkish predicates in the picture questionnaire data do not mark any person marking as third person singular and plural is not marked. And only the use of generalizing copula marker –DIR is used to marked third person singular however it is omissible, that is to say it is optional to use it especially with the locative case – DA, which in a way functions as a copula in static locative expressions.. When analyzing the syntactic functions of the postpositional phrases in Turkish, Göksel & Kerslake (2005: 25960,) suggests that only the postpositional phrase marked with locative case can function as an adjectival predicate. Therefore, in this very study, the use of all non-person-marked locative case predicates are counted under COP (n=415), including the overtly expressed –DIr forms of copula. Besides it has been observed in this study that dur- ‘stand’ as a static locative verb does not express any manner regarding the vertical and/or horizontal relation between the Figure and the path as compared to Danish and Swedish stå ’stand’ as a posture verb. The Figure entity does not need to touch the path on the larger or longer surface. Compare the two examples (19) for Picture 2 and (20) for Picture 3.
-DIr as generalizing copular marker is strangely has a phonological similarity to the locative verb dur-, which is already trying to take up the same function as –DIr which is a copula already. 22
Picture 2: Scene 10 in picture questionnaire data, mouse hanging
(19) Bilgisayar fare-si computer
The computer mouse is standing in a hanging form.
Picture 3: Scene 8 in Picture Questionnaire, the broom on the floor horizontal
(20) Temizlik Cleaning
‘The cleaning stick (=mop) is standing on the floor.’
In the example (19), the lower part of the subject entity has no touch with any horizontal plane and it expresses a closure towards an upper horizontal plane. It is also in parallel with a vertical façade of the path object. However, the static verb dur- ‘stand’ does not meet the spatial requirement for static meaning of ‘stand’. However, the information about the locative relation between the subject and path is embedded in the adverbial phrase, which is formed with the attachment of locative case ‘-DA’ to the end of nominal phrase. On the other hand, in (20) the subject entity (mop) is in parallel to the path (floor) with its longer and larger façade, while neither of the ends bases upon the upper horizontal surface of the path, namely yer ‘floor’. Another state verb like ‘lie’ could be a better alternative, but both of the dynamic and static meaning for otur- ‘sit down/be sitting’ requires an animate agent. The only verb that is generally used in static locative contexts is dur- ‘ stand’, which obviously loses its postural content as the main verb of the locative predicate in which locative case ‘-DA’ builds a direct physical contact between the subject and the path. In summary of the native Turkish use of the posture verb dur- ‘stand’, it is observed that it behaves as a default verb when it encodes spatial information for an inanimate entity. It is in an in-between sedimentation progress from a verb to auxiliary, which epitomizes Kuteva (1999) on the ‘sit/stand/lie’ auxiliation. Kuteva (1999:192) states that “the tendency for a language to encode the spatial position of an entity in terms of the notions of sitting, or standing, or lying elevates the corresponding verb structures to the status of basic, most common verb expressions and thus makes them appropriate source structures in auxiliation.” Therefore, according to the range of spatial relations that are expressed by dur-, its overuse for different postures, it can be concluded that it is in the sedimentation process of becoming an auxiliary verb in Turkish to encode spatial location just like the locative verb ligge in Danish. Table 9 illustrates the range of the positions that are most frequently expressed by the locative verb dur- and copular locative case –DA with their bilingual counterparts.
Table 9: The distribution of pictures across Turkish Locative verbs and the bilingual use locative verb dur- ‘stand’
picture 1. book under chair 2. book on chair 3. lid on table 6. plug in bowl 7. broom on floor vertical 8. broom on floor (horizontal) 9. mouse on table 10. mouse hanging 11. egg in water 12. egg in water, floating 13. glass on table, reversed 14. glass on table sideways 15. blanket on chair* 15. blanket on chair* 16. blanket on floor 17. paper roll sideways 18. paper roll on holder 21. key in keyhole 22. key hanging from keyhole 25. bottles on floor, scattered 26. bottles on floor, packed 27. pillows on couch, vertical 28. pillows on couch, horizontal 29. oranges lined on table 30. oranges heaped on table 31. bag on lamp, covering 4. lid on jug 5. plug in socket 19. ball under cloth, covered 20. ball under cover, half covered 23. paper on wall, taped 24. paper on wall, nailed 32. bag on lamp, hanging
bilingual locative verbs COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP yat- ‘lie’ COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP COP
As for the bilingual use of the static locative verbs in Turkish, copular use is more frequent than the posture verbs. The bilingual informants for questionnaire data prefer not using a posture verb to indicate the action of the static objects in the picture as can be seen in Figure 5. Therefore, even though the question Ne yapiyor? ‘What is it doing?’aims to elicit an active verb primed to be in progressive aspect with a third person singular agent, the bilinguals 25
mostly returned with a copular predicate, examples in (21), (22) and (23) illustrate some of the copular examples: Figure 5: The frequency of static Locative verbs in bilingual use of Turkish
COP ‘be’, dur- ‘stand’, yat- ‘lie down’, düs- ‘fall’, var ‘exist’, sallan- ‘be swung’), halde ‘be in the form of’, asil- ‘be hanged’, yaslan- ‘lie against’, yüz- ‘swim’, kapla- ‘cover’, bulun- ‘be found’, görun- ‘be seen’, gozuk- ‘seem’, dikil- ‘stand in’, ört- ‘cover’, dayan- ‘lean’, dön- ‘turn’, kapat- ‘cover’, otur- ‘sit’, bat‘sink’, saklan- ‘hide’, sark- ‘swing’, uzan- ‘lie’, yapis- ‘stick’, cik- ’ascend’, kal- ‘remain’, kay- ‘slide’, sil‘wipe’, ONE INSTANCE VERBS: suzul- ‘glide’, bak- ‘look’, dizil- ‘get in line’, goster- ‘show’, haslan- ‘boil’, sakla- ‘hide’, uza- ‘lie’
(21) Battaniye blanket
‘The blanket is under the armchair’(Scene 16)
(22) 4 four
‘Four oranges are side by side.’ (Scene 29)
(23) Fincan-ın Cup-GEN
‘The cover of the cup is on the table.’ (Scene 3) In (21), the relational noun alt ‘bottom’ is marked with the copular locative case -DA which provides more information about the spatial information, while in in (22), the relational noun yan ‘side’ is reduplicated and attached with a dative case to form an locative predicate. (23) The Ground, masa ‘table’, is marked with the copular locative case, which does not include any manner or detail about the type of spatial information. It rather behaves like an existential verb if it is in the predicate as it bridges a direct locative relation between the Figure and the 26
Ground. Generally, when the Ground is marked with a case, especially the locative case –DA, it ends up as the predicate in bilingual use. Therefore, it is mostly used as copula in bilingual Turkish. As stated above, the static locative verb dur- ‘stand’ behaves as a default auxiliary verb in the native use and it lacks manner, and it simply hosts the state event meaning not within itself but within its complement where the locative information is encoded. However, bilingual use of dur- has a more postural static meaning. The bilinguals use it as a main verb which conflates the manner and the path, whereas native speakers use dur- with a satellite for the manner and/or the path as observed in the examples in (19) and (20). Examples in (24) and (25) illustrate the postural use of dur- by bilinguals. (24) El hand
‘Hand paper is standing’(Scene 17)
(25) Bardak glass
‘The glas is standing’(Scene 13) Besides, as can be seen from the Figure 5, there are several examples of verbs such as yat-, otur-, yüz- (lie, sit, swim), which encode manner in the verb. The bilinguals seem to translate the manner verbs from their Danish counterparts ligge, sidde, svømme ‘lie, sit, swim’. Native speakers of Turkish express the manner embedded within the verb ‘ligge’ in the adverbial satellites such as yatik, yatay ‘linier, horizontal’ or resultatives like ‘yatmis ‘lying’, yatirilmis ‘lied down’ (see 4.2. Resultatives). Examples in (26), (27) and (28) illustrate the semantic calques of the verbs ‘ligge, side, svømme’ from Danish. (26) Paspas mop
‘The mop is lying in the floor.’ (Scene 8)
(27) Moppe mop
The mop is sitting on the floor. (Scene 8)
(28) Yumurta egg
‘The egg is swimming in the water’(Scene 12)
The Turkish calques of the intransitive verbs ‘ligge, sidde, svømme’ are illustrated in the examples (26), (27) and (28). The state verbs yat-, otur-, yüz- ‘lie, sit, swim’ require animate entities in the native use but they are used just as their Danish counterparts. Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1977) classifies these types of states as the subjective resultatives as they are intransitive and in progressive form. In the native use, the calques are not expressed in the finite verb but mainly in the non-finite verb (see 4.2. Resultatives). Moreover, the bilinguals seem to render the voice modifications in the finite verb with the progressive aspect. They finite verb is modified with intransitivizing suffix –(I)l, whereas the same type of voice modification is rendered in the non-finite verb by the native Turkish informants. Examples in the (29), (30) and (31) illustrate the voice modifications bilinguals carried out in the finite verb with a progressive aspect, and (32) expresses the native rendering of the voice modification.
(29) Bilgisayar computer
‘The computer mouse is being hanged. (Scene 10)
(30) Anahtar, key
The key is swinging in the keyhole. (Scene 22)
(31) Yastik-lar pillow-PLU
The pillows are leaning (against each other) on the armchair. (Scene 27)
(32) Battaniye blanket
The blanket is standing hanged on the chair. (Scene 15) In (29), transitive verb as- ‘hang’ is modified with the intransitivizing suffix –(I)l in progressive aspect. Such configuration of intransitived action verb in progressive form does not express a state in native Turkish as it is not a durative verb but a terminative one. Besides it requires the direct observation of the agent which is required to be animate as the Figure entity is the patient of the verb in progressive and passive form. On the other hand, the transitive verbs salla- ‘shake’ in (30) and yasla- ‘lay’ in (31) is attached with –(I)n suffix and become intransitive verbs, but they do express a state due to the durative aspect of the verb in 28
progressive form. On the other hand, in the example (32), the intransitivizing suffix –(I)l is attached to non-finite verb, of which the agent of the main verb dur- is the patient. In general, the main difference between the bilingual and the native use is that the bilinguals express the state as a subjective resultative verb whereas the natives use the objective resultative. Lastly, as a marker of the subjective resultative, Figure 6 shows the frequency of subjective resultative finite verbs in bilingual and native Turkish:
Figure 6: The frequency of subjective resultative finite verbs in bilingual and native Turkish
As can be seen in Figure 6, the native speakers express resultative state in the non-finite verbs but not in the finite verb. The resultatives in in the non-finite verbs as in (28) describes the manner of the locative verb. However, bilinguals express the manner in the finite verb just like many other verb framed languages like Danish and Swedish. The total number of main verbs by bilinguals is 1824, of which 237 express manner in the finite verb, which equals to 13%. On the other hand, the number of native use of manner verbs is 27, out of a total number of 1334, which accounts for the 2% percent of the whole native use of verbs. And that is probably why Simpson’s Diversity Index has shown a higher mean in the bilingual use of Turkish locative verbs than the native ones.
4.2. Resultatives Nedjalkov & Jaxontov (1988: 6) defines resultative as “verb forms that express a state implying a previous event”. As our picture questionnaire data consists of double pictures of the same entities with changing postures, it provides relevant data to express the previous event and its impact on the state of the action. Therefore, in order to describe a state event of an inanimate object, the question ‘What is (are) the thing(s) doing shown with the red arrow(s)?’ was directed to natives and bilinguals of Danish and Turkish. It returned with important data on the interference of the previous event and the actual static event.
4.2.1. Resultatives in Danish
In Danish, the primary result/state construction is carried out mainly by the static verbs like ligge, stå, hænge, sidde depending upon the type of locative state. As Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988:7) implies the progressive form of these verbs are the result of the terminated action which can be shown in a diathesis like (a) ‘John has sat down’ so (b) ‘he is sitting’. And in the previous section in Locative verbs, it has been shown that Danish is quite diverse in this type of resultative states, which are called subjective resultatives by Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988:9). The være copula can also replace the locative verbs in Danish as well to mark subjective resultative state, but as shown earlier in this study, native use opts for static locative verb than a bare copula. However, være ‘be’ copula can also be used in locative construction, but it encodes the previous event in the non-finite verb which is the past participle to mark the objective resultative. According to Allan et. al. (1995: 321-22) være be copula + past participle is used for adjectival and verbal complement to indicate the result/state events. Therefore, in this section only ‘copula+ past participle’ predicates in native Danish are analyzed under the resultatives as this section probes the objective resultatives mainly. In the Table 10, the frequency of objective resultative constructions for static location by native Danish is illustrated. Table 10: the frequency of objective resultative constructions for static location by native Danish copular verb for resultative
frequency in the resultatives
frequency in the static predicate
As can be seen from the Table 10 above, the objective resultative constructions in Danish for static locative events is most frequently expressed by the copula+ past participle (cf. Allan et. Al. 1995: 321). Only three examples of objective resultatives are used with posture verbs such as ligge, stå ‘lie, stand’ and an action verb vend ‘turn’ as in the examples (33), (34) and (35).
(33) Bold-en ball-DEF
‘The ball is lying hidden under the dishcloth’(Scene 20)
(34) To two
‘Two beer bottles are standing raised up on the floor.’ (Scene 26)
‘The mouse turns reversed on the (woden) table.’ (Scene 10) The number of objective resultatives is rather high as it makes up of the all of the participles accompanying the copula være ‘be’. Figure 7 illustrates the number and types of participles that accompany copula være ‘be’ in Danish. The participles in the examples (33), (34) and (35) are the three most frequent resultatives used for the scene descriptions in picture questionnaire. Figure 7: The frequency of objective resultatives used with the være ‘be’ copula
sat ‘set’, tapet ‘taped’, dækket ‘hid’, stablet ‘stapled’, gemt ‘hidden’, klistret ‘clistered’, skjult ‘skewed’, sømmet ‘nailed’, gledet ‘slipped’, hængt ‘ hanged’ ,løftet ‘lifted’, slået ‘turned’
The være + past participle construction is generally an objective resultatives in which the subject is not the agent but the argument that is affected by the action expressed in the verb in participle form. In other words, the direct object becomes the subject on the syntactic surface level while the relationship between the agent and the patient is back-grounded as the source of information is not explicitly known. Besides all of the secondary state verbs are transitive verbs and are passivized with the past participle –t suffix. Therefore, native use of objective resultatives shows an animate inference by an unknown third party just as Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988:4) explains as “A secondary state is always the result of somebody’s conscious action or activity”. The examples in (36), (37) and (38) illustrate the three most frequent objective resultatives used by the natives for the location event in Danish. (36) Papir-et paper-DEF
‘The paper is set up on the wall.’ (Scene 24)
(37) Papir-et paper-DEF
‘The paper is taped on the wall ’ (Scene 23) (38) Ægg-et egg-DEF
‘The egg is covered with the dishcloth.’ (Scene 20)
The transitive verbs in the resultatives like sat, tape, dække ‘set, tape, cover’ are dynamic verbs which are embedded in the predicate with the copula in the past participle form. The direct object is the subject of the clause where the dynamic verb is marked with the past participle ‘-t’ suffix, and the main verb is the copula in progressive form. The agent of the participle verb is not given or known as the the source of information is not marked by any grammatical and/or lexical marker. Therefore, it can be concluded that the resultative construction for static location event is mainly carried out by være ‘be’ copula and the transitive past participle whose direct object is the subject of the passive construction. As for the bilinguals, the resultative constructions in the static location events are rather different from the native Danish examples. The bilinguals make use of postural verbs together with the resultatives. Table 11 exemplifies the frequency of the verbs that are used in the resultative constructions for static location events. Table 11: the frequency of objective resultative constructions for static location by bilinguals copular verb for resultative
frequency in the resultatives
frequency in the locative predicate
As can be seen from the Table 11, the past participles are mainly preceded by være ‘be’ copula, which is highly similar to the native use. The other intransitive posture verbs have been observed to accompany the past participle such as ligge, stå, har, sidde, lægge ‘lie, stand, have, sit, be placed’. However, there are some bilingual specific uses regarding the posture verbs with subjective resultatives as shown in the examples (39), (40) and (41): 32
(39) Glass-et glass-DEF
‘The glass is lying fallen on the table ’ (Scene 14)
(40) Mus-en mouse-DEF
‘The (computer) mouse is standing reversed on the desk.’ (Scene 10)
(41) Pudde-rne pillow-DEF.PLU
‘The pillows are lying leaned to the couch.’ (Scene 27) In (39) and (41), the main verb ligge ‘lie’ in Danish is a state verb which expresses a subjective result. However, the past participles in these examples are also intransitive subjective resultatives. Therefore, the static meaning is double marked in these two locative predicates. In (40), the locative description is a respond to the Picture 2, where the task for the informant is to describe the static locative event of a computer mouse which is hanging from the table. The predicate here includes a stå ‘stand’ and the intransitive past participle form of omvend ‘reverse’. As compared to the native use of the same scene which is most frequently described with posture verb hænge ‘hang’, resultative state verb stå seems to be the calque of dur- ‘stand’, which is the most frequent static locative verb in native Turkish use and the second most frequent in bilingual use of locative verbs in this study. The secondary state given in the past participles are not objective, as the verbs are in transitive. Therefore, the bilingual use of these secondary states goes against Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988) as they suggests “A secondary state is always the result of somebody’s conscious action or activity” (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 4). The secondary state in the examples (39), (40) and (41) do not express an animate interference on the result as the verbs are intransitive and the subject is an inanimate entity. So, the secondary states do not necessarily have to be the result of an animate action, regarding the Danish Turkish bilingual use of locative resultatives. In the native uses, More interestingly similar examples of posture verbs ‘ligge, stå, sidde’ with past participle makes up of 17% of the all resultative constructions, which is highly significant. Among all the posture verbs, ligge ‘lie’ is the most frequently accompanied with past participle. Some examples of the ligge + past participle are used mostly with objective resultatives as in the following examples.
ligge + past participle
Appelsinerne ligger spredt på bordet Appelsinerne ligger stablet sammen på bordet 4 appelsiner ligger samlet på bordet
’The oranges are lying spread out on the table’ ’The oranges are lying stacked on the table’ ’4 oranges are lying clustered on the table’
More interestingly, the være ‘be’ copula + past participles have also very different configuration than the native use of resultatives. As seen before, in Danish the objective resultative construction for static locative events are carried out by the copula være ‘be’ as the main verb and the transitive verb in the past participle form. However, the participles used with være ‘be’ copula are quite diverse and includes both transitive and intransitive past participle forms. According to Durst-Andersen and Herslund (1996:70) være+past participle is used for objective and har ‘have’ + past participle is for subjective results. However, bilinguals seem to use være + past participle interchangeably between subjective and objective resultatives as shown in the Figure 8 and in the following examples (42) – (47).
Figure 8: the frequency of participles in copular resultatives
sat ‘set’, tapet ‘glued’, dækket ‘covered’, ‘added’ , faldet ‘fallen’, sømmet ‘nailed’, faldt ‘ fell’, stillet ‘put’, hængt ‘hung’, væltet ‘overturned’, vendt ‘ reversed’, pakket ‘packed’, skruet ‘screwed’, taget ‘taken’, åbent ‘opened’, klistret ‘glued’, synket ‘sunk’, ligget ‘laid’, lænet ‘leaned’, lukket ‘closed’, TWO INSTANCE WORDS: blevet ‘become’, bygget ‘built’, drukket ‘drunk’, flyttet ‘moved’, formet ‘shaped’, fyldt ‘stuffed’, gemt ‘saved’, lodret ‘vertical’, omvendt ‘reversed’, vandret ‘horizontal’, ONE INSTANCE WORDS:boret ‘drilled’, bundet ‘bound’, glidet ‘glided’, knyttet ‘attached’, monteret ‘mounted’, nålet ‘needled’, søtet ‘seated’, stablet ‘stacked’, tændt ‘switched’
As seen in the Figure 8, være copula + sat ‘set’ is mostly prefered by the bilinguals. It is mostly used in state events where the native spakers used the active posture verb sidde ‘sit’. The sat participle focuses on the source of information whereas sidde express the a direct static posture event, in which the source of information is inhibited within the static event as it bridges the locational relation between the figure and the path. Following examples in, (42), (43) and (44) illustrate the sat ‘set’ objective resultative by bilinguals of Danish, which is most frequently expressed with with the locative state verb sidde ‘sit’ in native Danish:
(42) Nøgle-n key-DEF
‘The key is set in the lock’(Scene 21)
(43) Køkkenrulle-n papertowel-DEF
‘The paper towel is set on the holder.’ (Scene 18)
(44) Stikke-t plug-DEF
‘The plug is set in the socket.’ (Scene 5)
As previously stated, for the Picture 2, the half of the bilinguals used resultative construction for the static location of the entity ‘key’, whereas all of the natives used active posture verb sidde ‘sit’ for it. The example in (42) is the most frequent of use of participle sat ‘set’ by bilinguals. Like (42), the example in (43) illustrates the second most frequent example in which postural event ‘sit’ is expressed in resultative construction by the bilinguals while the native speakers used the posture verb sidde ‘sit’ instead. Lastly, in the example (44), both native and bilinguals of Danish are observed to use copula + sat ‘set’ to express the static location event for the entity ‘plug’. Most interestingly, bilinguals used subjective resultative construction for the intransitive verbs such as faldet, synket, lænet ‘fallen, sunk, leaned’ with være ‘be’ copula. They seem to be the calques transferred from their Turkish counterparts (see 4.2.2. Resultatives in Turkish). The examples in (45), (46) and (47) exemplify bilingual specific use of subjective resultatives for static locative events.
(45) Bogen book-DEF
‘The book is fallen down’(Scene 1) 35
(46) to two
‘Two pillows are leaned up on the sofa’(Scene 27)
(47) ægg-et egg-DEF
‘The egg is sunk in the water.’ (Scene 11) As seen in the examples (45), (46) and (47), være ‘be’ copula + past participle has a tendency to mark the subjective resultativity. Another bilingual specific use of resultatives is the past form of the verb fald ‘fall’. Its past participle form is faldet ‘fallen’, while its past form is faldt ‘fell’(Allan et al. 1995:258). And there are several examples of past form of (i.e faldt ‘fell’) is used together with være ‘be’ copula to mark the resultative state meaning see the examples in (48) and (49). (48) Dyn-en cover-DEF
‘The cover is fell down.’ (Scene 3)
(49) mop-en mop-DEF
‘The mop is fell down.’ (Scene 8) Similar examples to (48) and (49) are used 13 times in the whole bilingual Danish questionnaire data, which is 4% of the whole være + past participle constructions. Therefore, the current posture of the Figure is expressed implicitly as the previous event ‘falling’ results in its vertical posture. The direct manner of posture is preferred by natives in the posture verb like ‘ligge’ as shown in previous section. Lastly, another bilingual specific use is that være ‘be’ copula and ligge ‘lie’ are followed by present participles such as liggende, stående, hængende ‘lying, standing, hanging’ to express the resultative state. The present participle is used as predicative adjective and has a subjective attribution by indicating the manner of state. Examples (50), (51) and (52) display the present participles for expressing the locative relation between the Figure and Ground. (50) pose-n bag-DEF
‘The bag is lying hanging under the lamp’(Scene 32) 36
(51) bog-en book-DEF
‘The book is standing on a chair’(Scene 2)
(52) to two
‘Two pillows are lying on the couch.’ (Scene 27) The examples in (50), (51) and (52) illustrate the detachment of the manner from the main verb. Gennerally the manner is conflated in native Danish use of locative verbs, but bilinguals of Turkish seem to detach it from the main verb and live the main verb empty as in (51) and (52). The locative verb ligge in (50) marks the double marking of manner both in the main verb and the adverbial, which is the present participle. In conclusion, the native informants express the subjective resultative state in the locative posture verbs like ligge, stå, hænge, sidde and express the objective resultative state in the være + past participle constructions. The bilinguals remarkably use more objective resultatives as compared to native Danish. The subjective resultatives verbs are less preferred by bilinguals. The objective and resultatives constructions are realized alike in the past participles in the predicate. Bilinguals do not differentiate the transitive or intransitive verb in the resultative participles. As compared to native use, main verb in the resultative constructions is not limited to være copula, which is most frequently followed by the secondary state. In bilingual use, the main locative state verbs such as ligge, stå, side, hænge are also used more frequently to host the secondary states than the native use. Besides, bilinguals do not differentiate between transitive and intransitive verbs in the secondary states. 4.2.2. Resultatives in Turkish
As stated in the previous section, the primary state is mostly expressed with the locative verb is dur- ‘stand’, but it is a default verb and has a copular function and lacks manner. Therefore, it is frequently the secondary states where the locative expression is encoded. The secondary verb is generally marked with the following suffixation strategies to mark different resultative types: Type 1: Verb (INTR)- mIş Subjective resultative Type 2: Verb (TR) -(I)l –mIş Objective resultative Type 3: Verb (TR) -I -lI Objective resultative Type 4: Verb (INTR) -Ik subjective resultative
In Type 1, the secondary state verb is marked with the nominalization suffix – mIş, which has a perfective meaning and states the result of a previous completed event. Example (53) illustrates this type of subjective resultative.
(53) Komidin-den cupboard-ABL
‘(It) is standing hanged from the cupboard’(Scene 10) Type 2 is the same as Type 1 but it has a intransitivizing suffix –(I)l which passivize the transitive verb base as in (54). The –(I)lmIş use of verb has an inferential meaning, deduced from a previous action (Aksu-Koç et al 2009:15).
(54) Kağıt havlu, havlu-luğ-un paper towel
‘The paper towel is standing knocked (down) next to the holder ’ (Scene 17) Type 3 is an objective resultative in which the verb is first nominalized with the suffix –I and then marked with adjectival suffix –lI which has a possessive meaning. Göksel & Kerslake (2005:54) states that “a compound of –I and –lI forms adjectives and adjectival phrases like yazılı ‘written’, sarılı ‘wrapped’”. The –lI suffixes holds a possessive meaning of the static quality given by an animate subject. Example (55) illustrates the Type 3 resultatives in native use. (55) Fiş
‘The plug is standing inserted to the socket.’ (Scene 8) Type 4 has the base verb attached with –Ik which forms adjectives from the verb bases (Göksel & Kerslake 2005:54). Example (56) illustrates –Ik resultative.
(56) Fare mouse
‘The mouse is standing knocked (down).’ (Scene 10) The examples in (53) – (56) are taken from the native use from the questionnaire data. Table 9 below illustrates the frequency of resultatives in the native use of resultatives with regards to the total scene descriptions. 38
Table 12: the frequency of resultatives in the native use
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 total
number of occurrences per scene 34 218 150 40 442
frequency among total resultatives
frequency in total scene descriptions
8% 49% 34% 9% 100%
3% 16% 11% 3% 33%
As can be seen from Table 12, Type 2 and Type 3 are the most frequent resultative types used in the questionnaire data by native informants. These two types have mostly transitive verbs like tak- ‘insert,, as- ‘hang’, sar- ‘cover’, devir- ‘knock’ with a perfective meaning implying the previous event in these verbs. Type 1and Type 4 are the least preferred types of resultatives. The verb in Type 1 and 4 are generally intransitive verbs like sark-, bat-, düş- ‘hang, sink, fall’ and has a perfective meaning stating the result state action. This type of –mIş is called the evidential as it is inferred from the current state. As for the bilingual use of resultatives, the primary state is not marked by the default verb dur-, as it has a postural meaning in bilingual Turkish as stated in previous section. The primary state is marked with zero marked predicate, which is subsumed under the type of COP together with the rare use of generalizing modality marker –DIr. However, since the primary state is not marked with a verb and the predicate is zero marked, the resultative construction seems the like primary state. Besides, bilingual use of resultatives has a lower frequency regarding the use of resultatives as shown in Table 13. However, there is an extra type of resultative in bilingual use, which is attached to the base verb with intransitivizing suffix –(I)l and direct passive –DI, which indicates a referential past but lacks the source of information as the base verb is first affixed with causeative marker –(I)r and then it is passivized, see (57) for the Type 5 and see the Table 13 for the frequency of resultative construction types in bilingual use of Turkish:
(57) Yastık-lar pillow-PLU
‘The pillows are laid to the sides.’ (Scene 27)
Table 13: the frequency of resultative construction types in bilingual use of Turkish
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 total
number of occurrences per scene 18 185 145 33 9 378
frequency among total resultatives
frequency in total scene descriptions
5% 47% 37% 8% 2%
1% 10% 8% 2% 0%
As can be seen from the Table 13, the objective resultatives in Type 2 and Type 3 are more frequently used among the bilingual use of resultatives, but the general frequency of resultatives by bilinguals is lower than the native use of resultatives. This is mainly because of the fact that the locative case is generally used as the copula, and that the spatial information is more dominating than the resultative state. Besides, as has been shown in the previous section, primary and secondary states are less expressed in the locative state verbs but mostly in the zero marked predicate. However, the way the construction types are used is not identical in the native and the bilingual use. As stated before, in Type 2 and Type 3, the secondary state verbs are intransitive, therefore they are subjective. Type 1 and Type 4 constructions in native Turkish are transitive verbs inflected with adjectival suffix like – lI that express the current state by referring to the previous event. The bilingual uses are different in this sense. The types indicated above do not necessarily render either transitive or intransitive verb. The constructions have rendered both transitive and intransitive verbs in the secondary state. See example (58) to see the different use of Type 2 in the bilingual use:
(58) Paspas mop
‘The mop is leaned to the wall’
The verb dayan- ‘lean’ is intransitive verb and is marked with intransitivizing suffix and perfective aspect. The predicate is double marked with intransitivity. Another example of double marking is in (59) where the Type 3 verb is not transitive:
(59) Paspas mop
‘The mop is lying lied on the floor.’
Surprisingly in the bilingual use, all the examples of yat- intransitive verb in the secondary state are not marked with the same subjective resultative constructions as in the native use. 55% (n=18) of all constructions in Type 3 are intransitive verbs, which both marks the subjective and objective resultative. Of all the types, Type 3 and type 5 have the most typical bilingual aspect and voice coloring on locative predicates. As seen with the examples, yatılı is the bilingual specific use of resultative, which is semantically subjective resultative due to the intransitive verb yat- ‘lie’ and is morphologically objective resultative as it is suffixed with intransitivizing suffix. In conclusion, as seen from the resultatives in Turkish, bilinguals mark the secondary state quite differently from the native use. The native use has a rather quite unified use of subjective and objective resultative forms, while the bilingual use is not so unified and the bilinguals use subjective and objective resultative constructions interchangeably, which mostly results in double marking of resultative states.
4.3. Adpositions and case Danish and Turkish has different ways of expressing the spatial information between the Figure and the Ground. Danish makes use of prepositions and locative adverbs to indicate the locative relation, while Turkish makes use of cases, which are suffixed to the end of the relational noun or the Ground object. In this section, the data from the picture questionnaire will be analyzed regarding the locative descriptions for each scene which has an inanimate Figure to be described. In the first part the native and Danish use of prepositions are comparatively analyzed and in the second part, the native and bilingual responses in Turkish will be compared regarding the expression of spatial information 4.3.1. Prepositions in Danish In Danish, basic spatial information for static events is mostly expressed with the use of prepositions preceding the Ground object. The used of directional adverbs are mostly used for dynamic actions (see Harder et al 1996:160). Table 14 summarizes the how the relation between the figure and the Ground is expressed in native Danish. Table 14: Most frequent sentence structure for static locative construction in native Danish The Figure bog ‘book’,
locative verb ligge, hænge, sidde, stå, etc
preposition på, i, til, under, ved, efter, for, etc.
The Ground object stool ‘chair’, gulvet ‘floor’, sofa ‘couch’ etc.
There are also adverbials that are used to indicate locative adverbs such as om ‘over’, op ‘up’, ned ‘down’, ind ‘in, into’ between the locative verb and main preposition. The use of place adverbs enhances the static locative state meaning (see Harder et al 1996) as they add extra information to the main verb while prepositions clarify the spatial relation to the Ground object. Table 15 summarizes the use of the most frequent prepositions and adverbs for spatial information for the picture questionnaire in native use of Danish.
Table 15: the types of prepositions and adverbs used in native use of Danish geometry and function
inclusion (containment, possession)
i ‘in’, af,
superposition (support, domination)
på, over, oven på, ad, ved,
lower position (invisibility, dominated position)
The Figures in picture questionnaire most generally have a direct superpositional and/or inclusive spatial relation to the ground object; see Appendix III for the distribution of most frequent prepositions in native Danish use across questionnaire data. There are only two scene descriptions where adverbs only are used and the Ground object is omitted. Examples in (60), (61) and (62) illustrate the place adverbs that are most frequently used in questionnaire data.
(60) Mus-en mouse-DEF
‘The mouse is hanging down from the drawers.’ (Scene 10)
(61) Alle all.ADJ
‘All the bottles are standing up.’ (Scene 26)
(62) Nøgl-en key-DEF
‘The key is hanging out of the lock.’ (Scene 22) Only 4% of all the scene descriptions do not include any prepositions but adverbs like op ‘up’, ned ‘down’ and ud ‘out’ such as the one in (61). Table 16 summarizes the frequencies of native use spatial information markers.
Table 16: The summary of the prepositions and adverbs used by native Danish
only one preposition two prepositions one preposition + one adverb only one adverb no preposition or adverb total
153 112 33 13 9 320
48% 35% 10% 4% 3% 100%
Table 16 shows that one preposition is the dominant strategy used to indicate the spatial information when expressing a locative state. However, the use of two prepositions is also remarkably frequent to increase the detail about the spatial relation as exemplified in (63). (63) Låg-et cover-DEF
‘The cover is lying on the table before the jug.’ (Scene 3)
The amount of preciseness in spatial domain increases as the amount of prepositions is increased in the expression of locative state. The spatial information is also quite more with the use of one space adverb and a preposition as the space adverb also hints information on the manner of spatial relation. In general, native speakers range equally between at least one or two prepositions to indicate spatial information in locative information marker. One out of two pictures has the chance to be described by one preposition + preposition and/or an adverb. As for the bilingual use of Danish to express spatial information in locative events, the uses are quite different regarding the inclusion of spatial information. Table 17 illustrates the bilingual use of prepositions and space adverbs. Table 17: The summary of the prepositions and adverbs used by bilingual Danish
only one preposition two prepositions one preposition + one adverb only one adverb no preposition or adverb total
1272 308 64 51 129 1824
70% 17% 4% 3% 7% 100%
The use of only one preposition per scene is overwhelmingly more frequent than the use of two prepositions or the other variations shown in Table 17. More than 2/3 of the pictures are described only one preposition, which means that bilingual use locative expressions has evidently less spatial information than the native use. The spatial relation between the Figure and the Ground is more direct but has less detail. The shortage of more prepositions means 43
that the Path includes less Ground objects to enhance the spatial information in bilingual Danish then the naïve Danish. Considering the verbal choice for locative verb, the bilinguals have been observed to opt for være copula over other locative posture verbs such as ligge, hænge, sidde, stå etc. and use one preposition to describe locative information. Therefore, the spatial relation between the Figure and Ground is highly straightforward in bilingual use and has less detail regarding the spatial information and manner of location as the use of være copula carries no locative or postural manner. 4.3.2. Postpositions and case in Turkish In Turkish, the spatial relation between Figure and the Ground is expressed quite differently as compared to Danish. Turkish does not have prepositions like Danish, but spatial relations are expressed via large selection of cases. To indicate spatial relation, Turkish renders several spatial relation nouns with cases to express dative, locative, ablative relations. These relational nouns follow the complement, and that is why they are called postpositions. There are several relational nouns that are used as postpositions in Turkish as in the following Table 18 Table 18: Postpositions in Turkish, adapted from Goksel & Kerslake (2005:250) ön
‘in front of’
‘on top of’, ‘above’, ‘on’
‘under’, ‘underneath’, ‘below’
‘beside’, ‘next to’
When suffixed with cases, the relation nouns convey the spatial information given on the right hand side of the arrow in Table 18. There are three types of marking the spatial relations in Turkish. First of all, there is possessive case marked postpositions which has genitive complements, which carries the most detail in spatial information between the Figure and Ground as in (64). Secondly, there is possessive case marked postpositions which do not have a genitive complement like (65). The second group is mostly used for to express the non-physical state, but can be used for indicating generic location (Goksel & Kerslake 2005:251). Lastly, the spatial relation is 44
barely expressed with the marking the object with cases as in (66). The third group is more directional and is less specific in the spatial relation between the figure and the object. Compare the examples in (64), (65) and (66) to see the difference:
(64) Battaniye blanket
sandalye nin arka-sın-da
‘The blanket is standing hanged on the back of the chair.’ (Scene 15) (65) Kağıt paper
‘We solved the problem on the paper.’
(66) Anahtar key
‘The key is standing at the lock.’ (Scene 21) Examples (64) and (66) are taken from the native informants. In (64), the Figure entity battaniye ‘blanket’ has a more specific contact with its ground object sandalye ‘chair’. Which part of the chair is specified with the genitive + possessive construction. Unlike (64), the bare case marking of the object in (66) does not give detail about the type of spatial information. The amount of involvement is not specified, therefore it is ambiguous to indicate whether it is the whole object or its part is involved in the contact. The example (65) has a more metaphorical reading, the locational relationship with the paper refers to the paperwork requires for solving a problem. The example is adapted from Göksel & Kerslake (2005:252). The postpositions can also be used as adverbs when the subject entity is composed of at least two or more entities. In this case, the post-postion is reduplicated and the second one is suffixed with dative –A, such as yan yana ‘side by side’, alt alta ‘under the other’, üstüste ‘on the other’, arka arkaya ‘behind the other’ etc,. For expressing locative events, the locative case –DA is used most frequently, which functions as a locative copula. Compared to the other cases in Turkish, it is the only one that can function as a predicate when suffixed to a relational noun (see (Goksel & Kerslake 2005:260). Table 19 illustrates the frequency of postpositions used by native informants to express static locative event.
Table 19: the frequency of postpositions in native use of Turkish number
genitive + possessive postpositions
When expressing the locative event, native speakers use bare cases attached to the object more than the other use of postpositions. All of the genitive + possessive postpositions are inflected with locative case. The questionnaire has the üzer and ust ‘top’ as the artifact postpositions as they are the most frequently used for locative event. The native use of bare cases is mostly used for dative relation and the locative case is used the second most frequent case. Adverbial use of postpositions is also quite less as the pictures containing more than one entity is limited in the picture questionnaire, see Appendix IV for the distribution of postpositions by the native informants. As for the bilingual use of postpositions for the picture questionnaire is relatively different from the native use. Table 20 illustrates the bilingual use of postpositions
Table 20: the frequency of postpositions in bilingual use of Turkish number
genitive + possessive post-postions
As can be seen from Table 20, the genitive + possessive constructions are more prevailing than the other uses. That may result from the fact that the possessive marked postpositions with genitive complements are used predicatively. Since all of the postpositions of this sort are also suffixed with locative case, the copular function becomes more evident. In conclusion, as stated before the predicative use locative case –DA is quite high in bilingual use and it bridges a direct spatial relation between the Figure and the Ground. The spatial information is mostly given in the primary state due to the predication of –DA. Therefore, the bilingual use includes spatial relation in the verbal area which is allocated with the locative
case, whereas native use is more centered around the locative verb dur- ‘stand’ and place the spatial information between the object and the main verb. Besides, the locative case is the most frequent case used among the bare use of postpositions. It is used as the only postposition in 22% (n=402) of the all bilingual uses of postpositions in Turkish for the picture questionnaire. Together with the genitive + possessive construction, DA makes up 70% of the all locative expressions, which marks the distinctive use of locative case and its predication.
5. Discussion and Conclusion This study initially aimed to provide answers to these three questions:
What are the differences between Danish and Turkish bilinguals and monolinguals in the expression of location events?
Can these differences be interpreted as language change?
How can the data be interpreted in typological perspective?
First of all, as has been pointed out throughout the study there are quite a lot of differences in the expression of location events both in Danish and Turkish and therefore in their bilinguals. Danish native speakers have been observed to use ligge ‘lie’ as the default locative verb, whereas Turkish native speakers use dur- ‘stand’ as the main locative verb. On the other hand, bilinguals of these languages seem to use være ‘be’ copula more frequently in their Danish use. And Turkish native speakers use locative case –DA as zero marked locative copula in Turkish. In their use of resultatives, both native Danish and Turkish informants prefer to express objective resultatives in the secondary states and subjective resultatives in the primary states. However, bilingual informants have been observed to use the same resultative structures interchangeably for both transitive and intransitive verbs, which mean that the bilinguals prefer to express subjective resultatives as equally as the objective resultatives in the secondary states. As far as the expression of the Ground is concerned, native speakers of Danish include more prepositions and adverbs to mark spatial information than the bilinguals in their Danish. The spatial relationship is more detailed than the bilingual use of locative events in Danish. On the other hand, native speakers of Turkish are less descriptive in the details of spatial information via the use of postpositions. Bilingual informants include more detail of the physical contact between the Figure and the Ground via the use of postpositions. If we turn to the second question, the differences are quite obvious and consistent in locative events and can be said to result from the contact of these two typologically different languages. In the bilingual Turkish and Danish, the use of copula dominates the other verbal choices to express locative event. Secondly, the transitive and intransitive structures are not 47
clear cut different in bilingual uses. Therefore, the fuzziness of the boundary between transitive and intransitive construction can be counted as bilingual specific use and result from the two different marking systems for transitivity in both languages. Regarding the use of adpositions, the use of prepositions and postpositions do not differ dramatically between the bilingual and native use. However, the primary locative state is expressed via locative case â€“ DA, which is copularized in the bilingual use of Turkish. The native use, on the other hand, has a greater bonding towards the posture verb dur-, which obviously seems to be a dummy verb to indicate locative verb. The locative case is raised to copula while the dummy verb dur- is in sedimentation to become a copular verb for static locative events. Lastly, from a typological perspective, these changes are quite unexpected. Bilingual use of Turkish and Danish does not fall into the two neatly distinct types of the verb-framed vs. satellite framed language dichotomy. In their Danish use, the bilinguals do not express the manner in locative verb, as they over use the vĂŚre copula, which does not conflate manner with motion. In their Turkish use, the Path is expressed in the use of locative case â€“DA, which is used as a copula and thus moves the encoding of the Path towards the verbal slot, while it is expected from a satellite-framed language to encode the Path as a satellite not in the verbal slot.
References Aksu-Koç, A., Ögel-Balaban, H. & Alp, I. E. (2009). Evidentials and source knowledge in Turkish. In S. A. Fitneva & T. Matsui (Eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 125, 13–28. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes, & Tom Lundskær-Nielsen: 1995, Danish, a Comprehensive Grammar, Routledge, London Ameka, F. K., & Levinson, S. C. (2007). Introduction-The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts. Linguistics, 45(5), 847-872. Ashley, A. & L. A. Carlson. (2007). Encoding direction when interpreting proximal terms. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(7). 1021–1024. Beavers, J., B. Levin & S. W. Tham. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331–377. Borillo, A. (1998). L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Editions Ophrys Carlson, L. A. & E. S. Covey. 2005. How far is near? Inferring distance from spatial descriptions.Language and Cognitive Processes 20. 617–631. Coventry, K. R. & S. C. Garrod. 2004. Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Hove: Psychology Press. Durst-Andersen, P. & Herslund, M. (1992). Prepositional Objects in Danish. Papers from the XIII Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Roskilde. Göksel A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge Grinewald, C. (2006). The expression of static location in a typological perspective. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (eds.), Space across languages: linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Heltoft, L., & Jakobsen, L. F., (1996). Danish passives and subject positions as a mood system. A content analysis. In Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen et al. (eds.), Content, Expression and Structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar, 199–234. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Hendriks, H., M. Watorek & P. Giuliano. (2004). L’expression de la localisation et du mouvement dans les descriptions et les récits en L1 et L2. Langage 155. 106–126. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2004). Language typologies in our language use: The case of Basquemotion events in adult oral narratives Cognitive Linguistics. 15.3: 317-49. Jessen, M. & Cadierno, T. (Forthcoming). Variation in the categorization of motion in L2 Danish by German and Turkish native speakers. To appear in J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Kopecka, A. (2004). Etude typologique de l’expression de l’espace: Localisation et déplacementen français et en polonais. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 doctoral dissertation. Kopecka, A. (2006). The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: Typological perspectives. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kopecka, A. & S. Pourcel. (2005). Motion expressions in French: Typological diversity. Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 139–153. Kuteva, T. (1999). On ‘sit’/‘stand’/‘lie’ auxiliation. Linguistics, 37(2), 191–213 Lemmens, M., (2005). Aspectual Posture Verb Constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17.3: 183–217 Lemmens, M. (2005). Motion and location: Toward a cognitive typology. In G. Girard-Gillet (ed.), Parcours linguistiques: Domaine anglais [CIEREC Travaux 122], 223–244. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université St.-Etienne. Lewis, G. L. (1967).Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. Naigles, L.R. & Terrazas, P. (1998). Motion verb generalizations in English and Spanish: Influences of language and syntax. Psychological Science, 9, 363-369. Nedjalkov, V. P. & Jaxontov, S. J. (1988). The typology of resultative constructions. In Typology of Resultative Constructions, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), 3–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Offwell Woodland & Wildlife Trust (1998). Simpson’s Diversity Index. Retrieved from:http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm Oh, K. (2003). Language, cognition, and development: Motion events in English and Korean. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (09), 4655B. UMI no. 3105326. Ohara, K. H. (2000). Cognitive and structural constraints on motion descriptions: Observations from Japanese and English. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Cognitive Science and the 16th annual meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 994-997. Özçalışkan, Seyda and Dan I. Slobin (1999) Learning ‘‘how to search for the frog’’: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In Greenhill, A., H. Littlefield, and C. Tano (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 541–552. - (2000a) Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization choices in expressing motion events with manner and path components. In Catherine-Howell, S., S. A. Fish, and Keith Lucas (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 558–570.244 - (2000b) Expression of manner of movement in monolingual and bilingual adult narratives: Turkish vs. English. In Gö ksel, Aslı and elia Kerslake (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 253–262. - (2003) Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in English and Turkish. In Özsoy, A. S. D. Akar, M. Nakipoglu-Demiralp, E. E. Taylan, A. Aksu-Koc (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press. Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84(2), 189–219. 50
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 437–465. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Topological & contextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers. Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology,discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 59–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and semantic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–519. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tutton, M. 2011. How speakers gesture when encoding location with English on and French sur.Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3431–3454. Tutton, M. (2013). A new approach to analysing locative expressions. Language and Cognition 5(1): 25-60. Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Vandeloise, C. (1986). L’espace en français. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Vandeloise, C. (2006). Are there spatial prepositions? In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 139–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wälchli, B.,(2012) Grammaticalization clines in space: Zooming in on synchronic traces of diffusion processes. In Wiemer, B. & Wälchli, B. & Hansen, B. (eds.), Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact. Trends in Linguistics. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 242: 233-272. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Appendixes Appendix I: Questionnaire Form
Appendix II: SSP-Questionnaire
Appendix III: Prepositions in the data Distribution of most commonly used prepostions in native Danish across questionnaire data Figure Adverb preposition locative object 1. book under chair bog ‘book’ ned under stole ‘chair’ 2. book on chair bog ‘book’ på stole ‘chair’ 3. lid on table låg ‘cover’ foran kande ‘jug’ 4. lid on jug låg ‘cover’ i, på kande ‘jug’ 5. plug in socket stikk ’plug’ i kontakt ‘socket’ 6. plug in bowl stikk ´plug’ i glas ‘glass’ 7. broom on floor vertical mopp ’mop’ ad vægg ‘wall’ 8. broom on floor (horizontal) mopp ’mop’ op på gulvet ‘floor’ 9. mouse on table mus ’mouse’ på borde ‘table’ 10. mouse hanging mus ’mouse’ ned fra borde ‘table’ 11. egg in water ægg ’egg’ i vand ‘water’ 12. egg in water, floating ægg ’egg’ på vand ‘water’ 13. glass on table, reversed glas ‘glass’ på borde ‘table’ 14. glass on table sideways glas ‘glass’ ned på borde ‘table’ 15. blanket on chair tæppe over stole ‘chair’ ’blanket’ 16. blanket on floor tæppe på gulvet ’floor’ ’blanket’ 17. paper roll sideways køkkenrulle på borde ‘table’ ’kitchen roll’ 18. paper roll on holder køkkenrulle på borde ‘table’ ’kitchen roll’ 19. ball under cloth, covered bold ’ball’ under viskestykket ‘cloth’ 20. ball under cover, half bold ’ball’ under viskestykket ‘cloth’ covered 21. key in keyhole nøgle ’key’ i låsen ‘lock’ 22. key hanging from keyhole nøgle ’key’ fra nøglehul ‘keyhole’ 23. paper on wall, taped papir ’paper’ op på vægg ‘wall’ 24. paper on wall, nailed papir ’paper’ op på vægg ‘wall’ 25. bottles on floor, scattered flask ’bottle’ på gulvet ‘floor’ 26. bottles on floor, packed flask ’bottle’ på gulvet ‘floor’ 27. pillows on couch, vertical pudde på, i sofa ‘couch’ ’pillow’ 28. pillows on couch, pudde på, i sofa ‘couch’ horizontal ’pillow’ 29. oranges lined on table appelsin på række ‘line’ ’orange’ 30. oranges heaped on table appelsin på hinanden ‘each ’orange’ other’ 31. bag on lamp, covering pose ’bag’ over lamp ‘lamp’ 32. bag on lamp, hanging pose ’bag’ under lamp ‘lamp’ 56
Appendix IV: Postpositions and case in the data Distribution of most commonly used postpositions and cases in native Turkish across questionnaire data Figure Adverb postlocative object position 1. book under chair kitap ‘book’ altında sandalye ‘chair’ 2. book on chair kitap‘book’ üstünde sandalye ‘chair’ 3. lid on table kapak ‘cover’ önünde sürahi ’jug’ 4. lid on jug kapak‘cover’ üzerinde sürahi ’jug’ 5. plug in socket fiş ’plug’ DAT kontakt ‘socket’ 6. plug in bowl fiş ´plug’ içinde glas ‘glass’ 7. broom on floor vertical paspas ’mop’ DAT vægg ‘wall’ 8. broom on floor (horizontal) paspas ’mop’ LOC gulvet ‘floor’ 9. mouse on table fare ’mouse’ üzerinde borde ‘table’ 10. mouse hanging fare ’mouse’ aşağı ABB borde ‘table’ 11. egg in water yumurta ’egg’ LOC vand ‘water’ 12. egg in water, floating yumurta’egg’ üzerinde vand ‘water’ 13. glass on table, reversed bardak ‘glass’ üstünde borde ’table’ 14. glass on table sideways bardak ‘glass’ üstünde borde ‘table’ 15. blanket on chair battaniye’blanket’ üzerinde stole ‘chair’ 16. blanket on floor battaniye LOC gulvet ‘floor’ ’blanket’ 17. paper roll sideways kağıt havlu üstünde borde ‘table’ ’kitchen roll’ 18. paper roll on holder kağıt havlu LOC borde ‘table’ ’kitchen roll’ 19. ball under cloth, covered top ’ball’ altında viskestykket ‘cloth’ 20. ball under cover, half top ’ball’ altında viskestykket covered ‘cloth’ 21. key in keyhole anahtar ’key’ LOC låsen ‘lock’ 22. key hanging from keyhole anahtar ’key’ aşağı ABB nøglehul ‘keyhole’ 23. paper on wall, taped kağıt ’paper’ DAT vægg ‘wall’ 24. paper on wall, nailed kağıt ’paper’ DAT vægg ‘wall’ 25. bottles on floor, scattered şişe ’bottle’ LOC gulvet ‘floor’ 26. bottles on floor, packed şişe ’bottle’ LOC gulvet ‘floor’ 27. pillows on couch, vertical yastık ’pillow’ yan üstünde sofa ‘couch’ yana 28. pillows on couch, yastık ’pillow’ üst üste üstünde sofa ‘couch’ horizontal 29. oranges lined on table portakal ’orange’ LOC række ‘line’ 30. oranges heaped on table portakal ’orange’ üst üste üstünde hinanden ‘each other’ 31. bag on lamp, covering poşet ’bag’ LOC lamp ‘lamp’ 32. bag on lamp, hanging poşet’bag’ aşağı ABB lamp ‘lamp’ 57
Stockholms universitet/Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Telefon/Phone: 08 â€“ 16 20 00 www.su.se
Published on Dec 1, 2013
A comparative analysis of location events in Danish, Turkish and bilingual use of the two languages Ramazan Dicle Stockholm University Dep...