P'nin durumundaki değişim ve bunun bağıl cümle yapımı üzerindeki etkisi

Bu makale, iki Mundaka Bask çeşidinde (Mundaka Bask I ve Mundaka Bask II) dolaylı nesne veya ek boşluklu ilgi cümlelerin yapısının bir analizini sunmaktadır. Mundaka Bask 1‟de, dolaylı nesne ve eklerin sıfatlaştırılması, ilgi cümleciği özne ya da nesne konumunda olduğunda, dilbilgisi kurallarına uygundur. Ancak Mundaka Bask 2‟ de bu sözdizimsel yapı dilbilgisi kurallarına uygun değildir. Bu değişim, P'nin durumundaki bir farklılık ile açıklanmaktadır. Mundaka Bask 1‟de, P'nin değerlenmemiş j- özellikleri bulanmasına karşın, Mundaka Bask 2‟ de, P hiç değerlenmemiş - özelliklere sahip değildir. Bunun kanıtı, [-Q] gömülü cümlelerden PP çıkarımı ile elde edilir: Mundaka Bask 1‟de, Mundaka Bask 2‟ nin aksine, ara v,  özelliklerini, çıkarılan cümlenin P'siyle değerlendirir. Buna ek olarak, bu çalışma Durum Eşleştirme Etkisinin bir sözdizimsel kısıtlama değil, morfolojik bir kısıt olduğunu göstermektedir.

Variation on the status of the P and its effects on relative clause construction

This paper presents an analysis of the structure of relative clauses with an indirect object or adjunct gap in twoMundaka Basque varieties (Mundaka Basque I and Mundaka Basque II). In Mundaka Basque I, relativization ofindirect objects and adjuncts is grammatical when the relative clause is in subject or direct object position, whilein Mundaka Basque II this same syntactic configuration is ungrammatical. This variation is explained by adifference in the status of P. In Mundaka Basque I the P has unvalued - features, whereas in Mundaka Basque IIthe P has no unvalued - features. Evidence for this comes from PP extraction out of [-Q] embedded clauses: theintermediate v gets its - features valued by the P of the extracted phrase in Mundaka Basque I, while it does notin Mundaka Basque II. Additionally, this study shows that the Case matching effect is not a syntactic constraintbut rather a morphological constraint.

PDF

___

Abels, K. (2012). Phases. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter gmbh,.
Alexiadou, A., et al. (2000). The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. .
Aoun, J., & Audre Li, Y. (2003). Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh- construction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Artiagoitia, X. (1992). Why Basque doesn‟t relativise everything. In J. Lakarra & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Syntax theory and Basque syntax (pp. 11-35). San Sebastián: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.
Béjar, S. (2003). Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto dissertation,
Bhatt, R. (1997). Matching effects and the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence from Hindi correlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 31, 53-68
Bhatt, R. (2002). The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10, 43-90.
Bianchi, V. (1999). Consequences of antisymmetry: Head relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Bianchi, V. (2000). The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsely. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 123-140.
Brame, M. (1968). A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretive theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bresnan, J., & Grimshaw, J. (1978). The syntax of free telatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331- 391.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Wh-movement. In P.W. Culicover, T Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 71-132). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89- 159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Eds.), Ken Hale: A life in Language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555–595.
Embick, D. & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand, & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gondra, A. (2015). Head raising analysis and case revaluation. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 4(2), 193-225.
Gondra, A. (2016). Head wxternal analysis, head raising analysis or matching analysis? Let's ask experimental syntax. Lingua, 179, 57-75.
Gondra, A. (In press). Cross-generational syntactic change in Mundaka Basque: the influence of the language of instruction. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca "Julio de Urquijo".
Grimshaw, J. (1977). English wh-constructions and the theory of grammar. Amherst, MA: Umass dissertation.
Groos, A., & Van Riemsijk, H.C. (1979). Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In A. Belletti et al. (Eds.), Theory of markedness in a generative grammar: Proceedings of the IV GLOW Conference. Pisa, Italy.
Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laka, I. (2000). Theta blind case: Burzio's generalisation and its image in the mirror. In E. Reuland (Eds.), Arguments and case (pp. 103-129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. International Journal of American Linguistics 28(2), 134-146.
Lees, R. B. (1961). The constituent structure of noun phrases. American Speech 36, 159–168.
Oyharçabal, B. (1988). Operatzaile isila euskarazko perpaus erlatiboetan. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca ‘Julio de Urquijo’ 22, 93-97.
Oyharçabal, B. (2003). Relative clauses. In J. I. Hualde, & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), A grammar of Basque (pp. 762-823). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
Partee, B. (1975). Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6(2), 203– 300.
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2004). Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In J. Guéron, & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Řezáč, M. (2008). Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. Phi theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules, 83-129.
Rezac, M, Albizu, P., & Etxepare, E. (2011). The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(4), 1273-1330.
Richards, N. (2013). Lardil “case stacking” and the timing of case assignment. Syntax, 16(1), 42-76.
de Rijk, R. (1972). Relative clauses in Basque: A guided tour. Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 115-135.
Rouveret, A. (1991). Functional categories and agreement. The Linguistic Review 8, 353-387.
Salzmann, M. (2006). Resumptive prolepsis: A study in indirect A′ dependencies. Utrecht: LOT.
Sauerland, U. (1998). The meaning of chains. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sauerland, U. (2004). The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12, 63-127.
Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and relativization. Language, 19-46
Vergnaud, J. (1974). French Relative Clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vicente, L. (2002). Prenominal Relatives in Basque and Antisymmetry. Bilbao, Bizkaia: University of Deusto.