Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change

Bilingualism

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 41-63

  Doğruöz, A Seza ^a   Backus, A D ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649647600     PISSN: 13667289     EISSN: 14691841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1366728908003441     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aikhenvaid, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W (eds.) (2001). Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problenns in comparative lingauistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Backus, A. (1996). Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigratns in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
3. Backus, A. (2001). The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch-Turkish. in R. Jacobson (ed.), Trends in linguistics: Codeswitching worldwide II, pp. 125-157. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Backus, A. (2004). Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 179-181.
5. Backus, A (2004b). Turkish as an immigrant language, in Europe. in T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism, pp. 699-724. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Backus, A. (2005). Codeswitching and language charge: One, thing leads to another? International Journal of Bilingualism, 9 (3-4), 307-340.
7. Bolonyai, A. (2000). Elective affinities: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its structural consequences. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 4 (1), 81-106.
8. Bullock, B. & Toribio, A. J. (2004). introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 91-93.
9. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
10. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Dablovvska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
13. Dabrowska, E. & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (3), 437-474.
14. Dede, M. (1996). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In Slobin & Zimmer (eds.), pp. 147-165.
15. Doǧruöz, A. S. & Backus, A. (2007). Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of change? International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (2), 185-221.
16. Dorian, N. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
17. Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1)1, 1-25.
18. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64 (3), 501-538.
19. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Goldberg, A. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532-568.
21. Grzega, J. (2003). Borrowing as a word-finduig process in cognitive historical onomasiology. Onomasiology Online, 4, 22-42.
22. Haase, M. (1992). Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel im Baskenland. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
23. Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24. Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. T. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251-299.
26. Johanson, L. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts Richmond: Curzon Press.
27. Kiliçaslan, Y. (2004). Syntax of information structure in Turkish. Linguistics, 42, 717-764.
28. Kiliçaslan, Y. (2006). A situation-theoretic approach to case marking semantics in Turkish. Lingua, 116, 112-144.
29. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Langoacker, R. W. (1987). Foundation of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32. Langacker, R. W. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71 (1), 1-62.
33. Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61 (1), 30-44.
34. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B. & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84 (1), 50-64.
35. Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 125-142.
36. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223-242.
39. Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70 (3 ), 491-538.
40. Otheguy, R. (1993). A reconsideration of the notion of loan translation in the analysis of U.S. Spanish. In A. Roca & J. M. Lipski (eds.), Spanish in the United States: Linguistic contact and diversity, pp. 21-41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
41. Owen, J. (1996) Idiomatic structure and tbeory of genetic relationship. Diachronica 13, 283-318.
42. Roelofs, A. & Baayen, H. R. (2002). Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Pyschonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 132-138.
43. Romaine, S. (1999). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
44. Rostila, J. (2006). Storage as a way to grammaticalization. Constructions, 1, 1-59. www.constructions-online.de (30 August 2006).
45. Sánchez, L. (2004). Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 7 (2), 147-162.
46. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
47. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1998). On borrowing as a mechanism of syntactic change. In A. Schivegier, B. Tranel & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives, pp. 225-246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In J. Macnamara (ed.), Language learning and thought, pp. 185 214. San Francisco: Academic Press.
48. Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (eds.) (1986). Studies in Turkish linzuistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
49. Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
50. Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1999). Languaze contact, creolizaiion and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
51. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52. Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimatization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 165-173.
53. Tura, S. S. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish non-verbal sentences. In Slobin & Zimmer (eds.), pp. 165-195.
54. Türker, E. (2000). Turkish-Norwegian codeswitching: Evidence from intermediate and second generation immigrant Turkish in Norway. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo. [Oslo: Unipub Forlag, no. 83.]
55. Türker, E. (2005). Resisting the grammatical change: Nominal groups in Turkish-Norwegian codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 453-477.
56. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
57. Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Acquisition, 30, 75-115.
58. Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
59. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.