This study aimed to investigate how bilingual speakers process information in a bilingual mode setting which was created using a translation production task. The target linguistic property was evidentiality. It is grammatical and obligatory in Turkish and lexical and optional in English. The stimuli consisted of simple declarative sentences which were varied based on the evidential meaning (firsthand vs. non-firsthand). Then participants judged how confident the witness was. Both tasks were performed by 58 late L2 English, late L2 Turkish and early Turkish-English bilingual speakers. The results demonstrated that participants translated firsthand information more correctly than the non-firsthand in all conditions. Translation direction also influenced the accuracy. Furthermore, participants’ confidence judgments varied based on their bilingualism history. We use CASP (Complex Adaptive System Principles) Model for Bilingualism to formulate our predictions.
AikhenvaldA. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
2.
AikhenvaldA. Y.DixonR. M. W. (2003). Studies in evidentiality. Vol. 54: Typological studies in language. Benjamins.
3.
Aksu-KoçA. (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge University Press.
4.
Aksu-KoçA. (2016). The interface of evidentials and epistemics in Turkish: Perspectives from acquisition. In GuvenM.AkarD.OzturkB.KelepirM. (Eds.), Exploring the Turkish linguistic landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (Vol. 175, pp. 143–156).
5.
Aksu-KoçA.Ögel-BalabanH.Alpİ. E. (2009). Evidentials and source knowledge in Turkish. In FitnevaS. A.MatsuiT. (Eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development (pp. 13–28). Jossey-Bass.
6.
ArslanS. (2020). When the owner of information is unsure: Epistemic uncertainty influences evidentiality processing in Turkish. Lingua, 247, 102989.
7.
ArslanS.BastiaanseR. (2020). First language exposure predicts attrition patterns in Turkish heritage speakers’ use of grammatical evidentiality. In BayramF. (Ed.), Studies in Turkish as a heritage language (pp. 105–126). John Benjamins.
8.
ArslanS.BastiaanseR.FelserC. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387
9.
ArslanS.De KokD.BastiaanseR. (2017). Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 457–472.
10.
AthanasopoulosP. (2011). Cognitive restructuring in bilingualism. In PavlenkoA. (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 29–65). Multilingual Matters.
11.
BenmamounE.MontrulS.PolinskyM. (2013). Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 259–294.
12.
Berk-SeligsonS. (2002). The Miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: The role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-English-speaking murder suspect. In CotterillJ. (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 127–143). Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
BoroditskyL.SchmidtL. A.PhillipsW. (2003). Sex, syntax and semantics. In GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–78). MIT Press.
14.
CasasolaM.BhagwatJ.BurkeA. S. (2009). Learning to form a spatial category of tight-fit relations: How experience with a label can give a boost. Developmental Psychology, 45, 711–723.
15.
CsatóÉ. Á. (2009). Rendering evidential meanings in Turkish and Swedish. In CsatóÉ. Á.ParslowG. J.ThiesenF.TürkerE. (Eds.), The institute for comparative research in human culture Oslo Serie B: Skrifter 132. Turcological letters to Bernt Brendemoen (pp. 77–86). Novus.
16.
CunninghamD. S.VaidJ.ChenH. C. (2011). Yo no lo tiré, se cayó solito, “I did not throw it, it just fell down”: Interpreting and recounting accidental events in Spanish and English. In CookV.BassettiB. (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (p. 407–429). Psychology Press.
17.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
18.
FilipovićL. (2011). Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 466–485.
19.
FilipovićL. (2013). The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. In FreemanM.SmithF. (Eds.), Law and language: Current legal issues (Vol. 15, pp. 328–343). Oxford University Press.
20.
FilipovićL. (2014). Efficiency of the bilingual mind: Clues from processing, memory and second language acquisition studies. In FilipovićL.PützM. (Eds.), Multilingual cognition and language use: Processing and typological perspectives. Vol. 44: Human cognitive processing series (pp. 205–227). John Benjamins.
21.
FilipovićL. (2016). Mayvs. might in the judgement on certainty: The difference between L1 and L2 English speakers. Applied Linguistic Review, 7(2), 181–201.
22.
FilipovićL. (2017a). Applied language typology: Applying typological insights in practice. Languages in Contrast, 17(2), 255–278.
23.
FilipovićL. (2017b). Applying language typology: Practical applications of research on typological contrasts between languages. In Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI. (Ed.), Human cognitive processing series. Motion and space across languages and applications (pp. 399–418). John Benjamins.
24.
FilipovićL. (2018). Speaking in L2 but thinking in L1: Language-specific effects on memory for causation events in English and Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 180–198.
25.
FilipovićL. (2019). Bilingualism in action: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
26.
FilipovićL. (2020). Bilingual memory advantage: Bilinguals use a common linguistic pattern as an aid to recall memory. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(3), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918814381
27.
FilipovićL. (2022). A multi-factor approach to the study of L2 acquisition of motion verbs and motion constructions: Integration of typological, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects. Frontiers in Communication, 7, Article 822517. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.822517
28.
FilipovićL.GascónA. H. (2019). Interpreting meaning in police interviews: Applied language typology in a forensic linguistics context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 67–104.
29.
FilipovićL.HawkinsJ. A. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics, 51(1), 145–176.
30.
FilipovićL.HawkinsJ. A. (2019). The complex adaptive system principles model for bilingualism: Language interactions within and across bilingual minds. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23, 1223–1248.
31.
GivónT. (2009). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Psychology Press.
32.
GrosjeanF. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In NicolJ. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Blackwell.
33.
HawkinsJ. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.
34.
HawkinsJ. A. (2009). An efficiency theory of complexity and related phenomena. In GilD.SampsonG.TrudgillP. (Eds.), Complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 252–268). Oxford University Press.
35.
HawkinsJ. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford University Press.
36.
IshidaK. (2006). How can you be so certain? The use of hearsay evidentials by English speaking learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1281–1304.
37.
JarvisS.PavlenkoA. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.
38.
KailiH.CeltekA.PapadopoulouD. (2016). The acquisition of TAM markers in L2 Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. In GürelA. (Ed.), Second language acquisition of Turkish. Vol. 59: Language acquisition and language disorders (pp. 75–106). John Benjamins.
39.
KamadaO. (1990). Reporting messages in Japanese as a second language. In KamadaO.JacobsenW. M. (Eds.), On Japanese andhow to teach it: Papers for Seiichi Makino (pp. 224–245). The Japan Times.
40.
KarayaylaT. (2020). Effects of first language attrition on heritage language input and ultimate attainment: Two generations of Turkish immigrants in the UK. In BrehmerB.Treffers-DallerJ.BerndtD. (Eds.), Lost in transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development (pp. 33–70). John Benjamins.
41.
Kaya-SoykanD.Antonova-UnluE.Sagin-SimsekC. (2020). The production and perception of Turkish evidentiality markers by Turkish-German returnees. Applied Linguistics Review, 14(2), 251–270.
42.
KosterD.CadiernoT. (2019). The effect of language on recognition memory in first language and second language speakers: The case of placement events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 651–669.
43.
NaritaR. (2011). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1–29.
44.
O’MahonyM.IshiiR. (1986). A comparison of English and Japanese taste languages: Taste descriptive methodology, codability and the umami taste. British Journal of Psychology, 77(2), 161–174.
45.
OzturkO.PapafragouA. (2016). The acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring. Language Learning and Development, 12, 199–230.
46.
Pascual y CaboD.RothmanJ. (2012). The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33, 1–7.
47.
PavlenkoA. (2011). Language in mind. Cambridge University Press.
48.
SchmidM. S.KarayaylaT. (2020). The roles of age, attitude, and use in first language development and attrition of Turkish–English bilinguals. Language Learning, 70(Suppl. 1), 54–84.
49.
SlobinD. I. (2016). Thinking for speaking and the construction of evidentiality in language contact. In GüvenM.AkarD.OztürkB.KelepirM. (Eds.), Exploring the Turkish linguistic landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan. Vol. 175: Studies in language companion series (pp. 105–120). John Benjamins.
50.
TokacS. D.ArslanS.NickelsL. (2021, June10–11). Turkish heritage speakers’ evidentiality processing during spoken sentence comprehension [Presentation]. Evidentiality and modality: At the crossroads of grammar and lexicon (virtual).
51.
TosunS.FilipovićL. (2022). Lost in translation, apparently: Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish-English translation and judgment task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(5), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000141
52.
TosunS.VaidJ. (2018). Activation of source and stance in interpreting evidential and modal expressions in Turkish and English. Dialogue and Discourse, 9(1), 128–162.
53.
TosunS.VaidJ.GeraciL. (2013). Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence influence source memory? A Turkish/English investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 121–134.
54.
ÜnalE.PapafragouA. (2016). Production-comprehension asymmetries and the acquisition of evidential morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 179–199.
