Binding in Turkish Nominal Phrases and Phase-Sliding

There are studies within literature which claim that nominal phrases such as DPs also constitute phases in addition to v*Ps and CPs (Chomsky, 2006; Hiraiwa, 2005; Marantz, 2007; Ott, 2008 and Svenious, 2004 among others). Every phase is subject to a strict locality condition, i.e. Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky, 2001), which forms an opaque domain for external probes. As one of the phenomenon subject to this strict locality, anaphor binding is allowed only within a given phase, since each phase is a local domain for the binding to occur. However, binding in Turkish CPs and DPs behave differently from each other. While the former allows only local reflexive binding, the latter allows distant reflexive binding as well. If DPs are also assumed to be phases, then they must not allow distant reflexive binding. I claim that this problem is an extension of an operation referred to as phasesliding. It is an operation that extends the phase boundary by pushing up the borders of a spell-out domain (Gallego, 2010). It occurs when a phase head H0 is raised to another head X0 to form a complex [H0+X0 ]. This study aims to show that this operation accounts for the asymmetry between the binding behaviors of the two phases, i.e. DPs and CPs.

Türkçe Adcıl Öbeklerde Bağlama ve Evre-Kaydırma

Standart biçimde evre olarak benimsenen eÖ (küçük eylem öbeği) ve TÖ’lerin (tümleyici öbeği) yanısıra, BelÖ başta olmak üzere adcıl öbeklerin de sözdizimsel bir döngü oluşturduğunu savlayan bir alanyazın bulunmaktadır (bknz. Chomsky, 2006; Hiraiwa, 2005; Marantz, 2007; Ott, 2008 ve Svenious, 2004). Sözdizimsel döngü oluşturan bu evrelerin Evre Girimsizliği Koşulu (ing. Phase Impenetrability Condition) (Chomsky, 2001) gereği dış sondaların (ing. probe) işlemlerine karşı geçirimsiz bir alan oluşturmaları beklenir. Sözgelimi, göndergelerin yerel bir öncül tarafından bağlanması bu sözdizimsel döngülerde gerçekleşir, çünkü her evre aslında bir yerel alandır. Ancak BelÖ ve TÖ’lerin bağlama davranışlarına göz atıldığında BelÖ’lerdeki geçirimsizliğin ortadan kalktığı görülür. Yani, BelÖ’ler göndergelerin uzaktan bağlanmasına da izin verirken, TÖ’ler ise yalnızca yerel bağlamaya izin verir. Eğer adcıl öbekler alanyazında varsayıldığı biçimiyle birer evre olarak benimsenirse, gönderge bağlamanın her iki tümcede de aynı yerellik etkisini göstermesi beklenir. Bu bakışımsızlığın evrelerde gerçekleşen evre kaydırımı işleminin bir sonucu olduğunu düşünmekteyiz. Evre-kaydırımı dağıtım alanı sınırlarını genişleten bir işlemdir (Gallego, 2010). Bu durum, H0 gibi bir evre başının bir diğer baş X0 ’ye eklenip [H0+X0 ] karmaşığını oluşturmasıyla gerçekleşir. Bu çalışma da BelÖ ve TÖ’lerde bağlama açısından ortaya çıkan bu dağılımsal farklılığı evre kaydırımı ile açıklamayı hedeflemektedir.

___

Abels, K. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Benmamoun, E. (1997). Licensing of negative polarity items in Moroccan Arabic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(2), 263-287.

Bošković, Z. & Şener, S. (2012). Turkish NPs. Ms.

Bošković, Ž. (2010). Phases beyond clauses. Paper presented at GLOW33, Wroclaw, Poland.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Marvin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-156). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2006). Approaching UG from below. Ms.: MIT.

Chomsky, N. (2008). On Phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizaretta (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory (pp. 133-166). MA: MIT Press.

Citko, B. (2014). Phase theory: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Danon, G. (2011). Agreement and DP‐ internal feature distribution. Syntax, 14(4), 297- 317.

Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2003). Özgüllük ve belirlilik (Doctoral dissertation). Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.

Gallego, Á. (2009). Ellipsis by phase. Ms. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Gallego, A. J. (2010). Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haegemann, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. USA: Blackwell.

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA.

Huang, C.-T. J. (1993). Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24:103–138.

Inokuma, S. (2013). Introduction: Distribution of Nominal Elements Across Categories and their Interpretation. English Linguistics, 30(1), 216-222.

Jimenez‐ Fernandez, A. L., & İşsever, S. (2012) Deriving A/A’ effects in topic fronting Intervention of focus and binding. In J. Blaszczak, B. Rozwadowska, & Witkowski (Eds.), Current issues in generative linguistics: Syntax, semantics, phonology (pp. 8--‐ 25). Wroclaw: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics.

Kayabaşı, D. & Özgen, M. (2018). A Phase-Based Account of NPI-Licensing in Turkish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54(1), 83-113.

Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: clausal structure and scope (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA.

Keskin, C. (2009). Subject agreement-dependency of accusative case in Turkish or jumpstarting grammatical machinery. Amsterdam: LOT Publishing.

Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In J. A. Fodor and J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 246-323). NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kumar, R. (2006). Negation and licensing of negative polarity items in Hindi syntax. New York: Routledge.

Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal constituents and Linear Correspondence Axiom in Turkish. The Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 498-519.

Laka, I. (2013). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Anuario del Seminario de FilologíaVasca “Julio de Urquijo”, 25(1), 65-136.

Lasnik, H. (2003). Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory. London: Routledge.

Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2004). Binding by phase: (Non-)Complementarity in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 16(2), 111-173.

Mahajan, A. K. (1990). LF conditions on negative polarity licensing. Lingua, 80(4), 333- 348.

Marantz, A. (2007). Phases and words. in S. H. Choe (Ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar (pp. 191-220). Seoul: Dong In. Matushansky, O. (2005). Going through a phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Perspectives on Phases, 157–181.

Miyagawa, S. (2003), A-movement scrambling and options without optionality, [in:] S. Karimi (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 177–200.

Ott, D. (2008). Notes on noun ph(r)ases. Ms., Harvard University.

Özgen, M., & Aydın, Ö. (2016). What Type of Defective Feature Do Exceptionally CaseMarked Clauses of Turkish Bear? Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(4), 302- 325.

Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. John Benjamins.

Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 36, 355-426.

Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture (pp. 262-294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quicoli, C. A. (2008). Anaphora by phase. Syntax, 11(3), 299-329.

Richards, M. D. (2007a). On phases, phase heads, and functional categories, Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue, 1(1), 105-127.

Richards, M. D. (2007b). On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic inquiry, 38(3), 563-572.

Rizzi, L. (1997), The fine structure of the left periphery, in L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sezer, F. E. (1991). Issues in Turkish syntax (Doctoral dissertation). Harward University, Cambridge.

Svenious, P. (2004). On the Edge. In D. Adger, C. D. Cat, & A. G. (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects (pp. 261-287). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Şener, S. (2008). Non-canonical case licensing is canonical: Accusative subjects of CPs in Turkish. University of Connecticut, Retrieved from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~ses01009/Research_files/SENER%20 ACC%20SUBJECTS.PDF (08.10.2017)

Tsai, W. T. D. (2008). Object specificity in Chinese: A view from the vP periphery. The Linguistic Review, 25(3-4), 479-502.

Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede Belirleyici Öbeği. (Masters thesis). Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı. Ankara.

Ulutaş, S. (2008). Feature inheritance and subject Case in Turkish. Ms.

Ulutaş, S. (2009). Feature inheritance and subject Case in Turkish. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever & D.Peçenek (Eds.), Essays on Turkish Linguistics Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 141- 151). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-out. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (Ed.), Working minimalism (pp. 251-282). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Vasishth, S. (1999). Surface structure constraints on negative polarity and word order in Hindi and English. In The Proceedings of the Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars Conference.

Vicente, L. (2007). The syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leiden, Leiden.