The wh-adverbial&which-NP construction asymmetry within island structures in Turkish

The present study is a follow-up study of Çakır(2016b) which focused on the adverbial & which NP constructions asymmetry within island structures in Turkish. The characteristics of wh-adverbial nasıl “how” is compared with the which-NP constructions hangişekilde “in what way” and hangihalde “in what condition”. The island constraints that are focused on in the study are Complex NP Constraint, Sentential Subject Constraint and Adjunct Island Constraint. The data have been collected through a Self-Paced Reading Task, a Grammaticality Judgment Test and a Multiple Choice Test from 297 participants. The findings of the present study are consistent with the ones obtained in the previous one. It seems that the wh-operators whose wh-phrases include nominal elements in their structures can license the lower CP with [+wh] feature through spec-head agreement while the operators of the single-word wh-adverbials cannot do the same thing.

Türkçede ada yapıları içerisinde ne-zarfı & hangi-AÖ yapısı bakışımsızlığı

Mevcut çalışma, zarf- hangi AÖ öbeği bakışımsızlığına odaklanan X (2016b) nın bir devam çalışmasıdır. Bu çalışmada, bir ne-zarfı olan nasıl, Hangi-AÖ yapıları hangi şekilde ve hangi halde ile kıyaslanmıştır. Odaklanılan ada yapıları Karmaşık Ad Öbeği Kısıtlaması, Tümcesel Özne Kısıtlaması ve Eklenti Adası Kısıtlamasıdır. Çalışmanın verileri Bireysel Hızda Okuma Çalışması, Dilbilgisellik Değerlendirme Testi ve Çoktan Seçmeli Test vasıtasıyla 297 katılımcıdan elde edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları önceki çalışmada elde edilenlerle tutarlılık arz etmektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre sadece yapılarında isim soylu öğeler barındıran ne-öbeklerinin baş-gös ilişkisi yoluyla alt TÜMÖ‟ye [+ne] özelliği kazandırabildiği görülmektedir. Aynı işlevi tek sözcükten oluşan ne zarfları yerine getirememektedir.

PDF

___

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aoun, J., & Li, Y, A. (1993). Wh-elements in-situ: syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry, 24 (2): 199-238.

Arslan, C. (1999). Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.

Cheng, L. (1997). On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Outstanding dissertations in linguistics series, New York: Garland Publishing.

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations.In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.).A Festschrift for Morris Halle. (pp. 232-286). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

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

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

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

Çakır, S. (2015). Island constraints in Turkish: A Grammaticality Judgment Study. In D. Zeyrek, Ç. Sağın Şimşek, U. Ataş & J. Rehbein (Eds.) Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics. (pp. 68-76). Wiesbaden: HarrassowitzVerlag.

Çakır, S. (2016a). Island constraints and adjunct & argument asymmetry in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (29): 1-15.

Çakır, S. (2016b). The variability in the interpretation of different types of wh-adjuncts within island structures in Turkish.Journal of International Social Research, 9 (46): 48-57.

Görgülü, E. (2006). Variable wh-words in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.

Huang, C. T. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

İşsever, S. (2009).A syntactic account of wh-in-situ in Turkish. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever & D. Peçenek (Eds.). Essays on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 103-112). Harrasowitz, Verlag.

Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph (Eds.). In Progress in Linguistics. (pp. 143-173). The Hague: Mouton.

Kornfilt, J. (2003). Unmasking the Sentential Subject Constraint in Turkish. In A.S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu Demiralp, E.E. Erguvanlı Taylan & A. Aksu Koç (Eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 95-105). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.

Kornfilt, J. (2008). Some Observations on Turkish/Turkic RCs. Paper presented atLeipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity; MPI-EVA Conference, Leipzig.

Munn, A.(2007).Island constraints. Retrieved on August, 2016 from https://www.msu.edu/course/lin/ 434/PSets/island-constraints.pdf

Özsoy, S. (1996).A‟ dependencies in Turkish.Paper presented at the VI. Turkish Linguistics Conference; the School of Oriental and African Studies, London.

Rizzi, L. (2006). On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (Eds.), Wh Movement: Moving On. (pp. 97-133). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax.Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Retrieved on July, 2016 from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166.

Ross, H. (1984). Inner islands. In C. Brugman& M. Macauley (Eds.). Proceedings of theTenthAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley LinguisticsSociety. (pp.258-265). Berkeley LinguisticsSociety, University of California, Berkeley.

Schafer, R. (1995). Negation and verb second in Breton. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory, 13. 135-172.

Stepanov, A. (2007). Theend of CED? Minimalismandextractiondomains. Syntax, 10 (1): 80-126.