What Looks Like Relative Clause Extraposition in Turkish Does Not Seem To Be Rightward Movement

Bu çalışmada, İlgileme Cümlesinin ana cümlenin sonuna atılması gibiymiş duran yapının sözdizimi incelenmektedir. Kullanılan analize ulaşmak için, öncelikle Türkçenin İlgileme Cümlesindeki Tümleyici Öbeğinin yapısının ayrışık olduğu öne sürülmektedir. Daha sonra önerilen bu yapı, İlgileme Cümlesinin ana cümlenin sonuna atılması gibiymiş duran yapıyı açıklamak için kullanılmaktadır. Kapsam Etkileşimleri, Bağlama, Ne-sorularının İlgi Cümleleri ile etkileşimi ve Birden Fazla Kopyanın Söylenmesi gibi bulgular bize cümlenin sonundan ziyade cümlenin başına yani sola taşıma olduğunu göstermektedir.

In this paper, I investigate the syntax of what looks like Relative Clause Extraposition in Turkish. In order to attain the final analysis, I first propose a split-CP for Relative Clauses in Turkish. Then, I apply it to the apparent case of Relative Clause Extraposition. Evidence from several environments (i.e. scope relations, binding, interaction of wh-elements with RCs and multiple copies) points to a leftward movement analysis.

___

Aoun, J. & Li, Y.A. (2003). Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of Wh-construction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Baltin, M. (1983). Extraposition: Bounding vs. Government-Binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(1), 155-162.

Baltin, M. (2005). Extraposition, the Right Roof Constraint, Result Clauses, Relative Clause Extraposition, and PP Extraposition. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume II (pp. 197-248), Blackwell.

Bianchi, V. (1999). Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses (Vol. 46). Walter de Gruyter.

Boković, J. & Nunes, J. (2007). The copy theory of movement: A view from PF. In N. Corver and J. Nunes (Eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement (pp.13-74). John

Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in linguistics, no. 18.

Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-movement. In P.W. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp.71-132). Academic Pres.

Cresti, D. (1995). Indefinite topics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.

Francis, E. (2010). Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 35-74.

Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish, An Essential Grammar. Routledge, London.

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

Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic inquiry, 4(2), 169-193.

Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kornfilt, J. (2000). Some Syntactic and Morphological Properties of Relative Clauses in Turkish. In A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinenger and C. Wilder (Eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses (pp.121-159). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.

Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meral, H. M. (2004). Resumptive Pronouns in Turkish. Unpublished masters thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Nunes, J. (1995). The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Nunes, J. (1999). Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 32, 217-250.

Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp.281-337). Springer, Netherlands.

Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.