There is a sizeable group of words in Turkish whose ultimate origin is known to be Arabic but whose direct donor language is unclear. The paper analyses 69 such words, and compares the phonetic adaptations present in them, to those attested in Arabisms as well as to those found in Farsisms, in order to determine the probability of them belonging to one group or the other. The results are compared to the opinions of the main etymological dictionaries of Turkish, splitting them into two camps.

The present article constitutes the second part of a brief critical analysis of the research on attitude and attitude-(speech) behaviour relations. Its major aim is to show that the contribution from the socio-psychological paradigm can prove relevant and valuable when applied to sociolinguistic research on attitude and attitude-behaviour relations. The author argues that attitudinal investigations in sociolinguistics, despite their popularity and rich history, frequently suffer from a number of methodological and theoretical flaws. The author advances an argument that a reconceptualization of the construct of attitude and some additional methodological principles can help refine the whole paradigm of language attitude research. Specifically, it is pointed out that a cognitive/information-processing approach to attitude formation, the theory of planned behaviour and other theoretical and methodological insights discussed in this paper can prove immensely rewarding and can give a new impetus for further research.

In the article the author once again deals with the title/address for Hui Muslim imāms, Āhōng (阿訇), – a topic about which he already gave some information in a miscella published in Knüppel (2020). To this some further details on historical attempts of etymology are given in the text presented here.

This paper examines the factors influencing syntactical transfer in TLA. There are several factors that influence syntactic transfer in TLA: linguistic (such as typology); individual (such as learners’ “attention control” and age); psycho-linguistic (such as psychotypology and the learners’ awareness of cognates); and other factors (such as L2 type and amount of instruction). In summary, it was found that negative syntactic transfer from both L1 and L2 to L3 occurs when (a) languages are typologically dissimilar (b) learners’ “attention control ability” is low, and (c) L2 level of proficiency and exposure is advanced and L3 level of proficiency is low. In contrast, positive syntactic transfer from L1 and L2 to L3 occurs when (a) languages are typologically similar, (b) students perceive these languages as similar, and (c) L1 and L2 level of proficiency is high and L3 level of proficiency is low. Additionally, the learners’ age was found to potentially influence the language (L1 or L2) from which the transfer occurs into L3: L3 adult learners may count more on their L2 as a source of positive syntactic transfer into L3 whereas children may count more on their L1 as a source of positive syntactic transfer into L3. Finally, it was found that when L1, L2, and L3 are equally proximate, it is the L2 that has the primary influence on positive and negative syntactic transfer in TLA.