PHASEHOOD OF DPs IN TURKISH: AN IMPLICATION FOR NON-SIMULTANEITY

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 1 - 31, 24.10.2018

Murat Özgen

Öz

Relevant literature on the phasehood of phrases puts forwards a number of diagnostic tests which can reveal the interface properties of such phrases. Common phasal phrases are known to be v*P (Chomsky 2000 and subsequent studies), CP (Chomsky 2000 and subsequent studies), DP/nP (Chomsky 2006, Hiraiwa 2005, Marantz 2007, Ott 2008, and Svenious 2004), and pP (Abels 2003, Raposo 2002, Svenonius 2003, and van Riemsdijk 1978). Given that phases have natural interface correlates, we might state the following PF & LF correlates: extraposition & isolation, clefting, nuclear/sentential stress rule, ellipsis, extraction, propositionality, reconstruction, quantifier raising, binding, negative polarity item licensing. In this study, I aim to explore the phasehood of DPs in Turkish since these phrases are still on debate within the literature. I will show that the phasehood diagnostics applied on DPs in Turkish yield contradictory results in that DPs are convergent at PF, whereas they are not phases in terms of LF diagnostics. This problem suggests a dichotomy between simultaneous spell-out (Chomsky 2008), and non-simultaneous spell-out (Felsàer 2004, Marusàicà 2008) phenomena.

Anahtar Kelimeler

phasehood, nominal phrases, interface, non-simultaneous spell-out

TÜRKÇEDE BELÖ'LERİN EVRELİKLERİ: EŞSÜREMSİZLİĞE YÖNELİK BİR SEZDİRİM

Öz

Öbeklerin
evreliği konusundaki ilgili alanyazın öbeklerin arakesit özelliklerini ortaya
çıkaran tanılar ortaya koymaktadır. Evre olarak varsayılan standart öbekler e*Ö (Chomsky 2000 ve izleyen
çalışmaları), TÖ (Chomsky 2000 ve izleyen çalışmaları), BelÖ/aÖ (Chomsky 2006, Hiraiwa 2005,
Marantz 2007, Ott 2008 ve Svenious 2004) ve iÖ
(Abels 2003, Raposo 2002, Svenonius 2003 ve van Riemsdijk 1978) olarak
biçimlenir. Evrelerin arakesitlerde yansımalarının bulunduğu düşünülürse, bu
arakesit özelliklerinin şu şekilde olduğunu belirtebiliriz: dışakaydırma ve
yalıtlama, ayrıklaştırma, çekirdek/tümce vurgusu kuralı, eksiltileme, çıkarma,
önermesellik, gerikurulum, niceleyici yükseltme, bağlama, olumsuz kutup birimi
yetkilendirme. Bu çalışmada, BelÖ’lerin evreliklerini Türkçe üzerinden
tartışmayı amaçladık. Bu anlamda, BelÖ’lerin SB arakesitinde evre
oluşturduklarını; buna karşın MB’de evre olamadıklarını gösteren deneysel
kanıtlar sunacağız. Bu görünüm de alanyazında eşsüremli dağıtım (Chomsky 2008)
ve eşsüremsiz (ayrık) dağıtımla (Felsàer 2004, Marusàicà 2008) ilgili bir
sezdirimde bulunacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

evrelik, adcıl öbekler, arakesit, eşsüremsiz dağıtım

Kaynakça

• Abe, J., & Hoshi, H. (1997). Gapping and P-stranding. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6(1), pp. 101-136.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. In Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(2), pp. 263-287.Bošković, Z. & Şener, S. (2012). Turkish NPs. Ms.Bošković, Ž. (2010). Phases beyond clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.Bresnan, J. (1972). Theory of complementation in English syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Brody, M. (2000). Word order, restructuring, and Mirror Theory. The Derivation of VO and OV, edited by Peter Svenonius, pp. 27-43.Can-Bakırlı, Ö. (2005). Türkçede Ayrık Yapılar. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı.Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. U. (eds), Step by step (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. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In A. Beletti. (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1. s. 1-22.Chomsky, N. (2006). Approaching UG from below. Ms.: MIT.Chomsky, N. (2008). On Phases. In Freidin, Otero and Zubizaretta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory. MIT Press.Chung, S., Ladusaw, W. A., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural language semantics, 3(3), pp. 239-282.Felser, C. (2004). Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543–574.Fox, D. & Pesetsky, D. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: pp. 1–45.Freidin, R. (1999). Cyclicity and minimalism. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 32, pp. 95-126.Gallego, Á. (2009). Ellipsis by phase. Ms. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Gallego, A. J. (2010). Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Gengel, K. (2007). Focus and ellipsis: A generative analysis of pseudogapping and other elliptical structures. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Stuttgart.Gračanin-Yüksek, M., & İşsever, S. (2011). Movement of bare objects in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 22(1), pp. 33-49.Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. Ph.D Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.İnce, A. (2009). Dimensions of ellipsis: Investigations in Turkish. University of Maryland, College Park.Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L., & İşsever, S. (2012). Deriving A/A’-Effects in Topic Fronting: Intervention of Focus and Binding. Current Issues in Generative Linguistics, 55.Kahnemuyipour, A. (2004) The syntax of sentential stress. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Kayabaşı, D. & Özgen, M. (in press). A Phase-Based Account of NPI-Licensing in Turkish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, De Gruyter, Mouton.Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: clausal structure and scope, Ph.D Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.Keskin, C. (2009). Subject agreement-dependency of accusative sase in Turkish or jump-starting grammatical machinery. The Netherlands: LOT Publishing.Kim, S. (1999). Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 255-284.Kumar, R. (2006). Negation and licensing of negative polarity items in Hindi syntax. Taylor & Francis.Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal constituents and Linear Correspondence Axiom in Turkish. The Linguistic Inquiry (28), pp. 498-519.Laka, I. (2013). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. In Anuario del Seminario de FilologíaVasca" Julio de Urquijo", 25(1), pp. 65-136.Lasnik, H. (1999). On feature strength: three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 30: pp. 197-217.Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim and 332 U. Strauss (eds) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31, Vol. Two. GLSA, pp. 301-320.Lasnik, H. (2008). Repair by ellipsis revisited. class lectures at Nanzan University, Japan.Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2004). Binding by phase: (Non-)Complementarity in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16: 2. pp. 111-173.Legate, A. J. (1998). Verb phrase types and the notion of a phase. Ms. MIT.Legate, J. (2003). Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506–516Levine, R. D. (1985). Right node (non-)raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, pp. 492–497.Mahajan, A. K. (1990). LF conditions on negative polarity licensing. In Lingua, 80(4), pp. 333-348.Marantz, A. (2007). Phases and words. in S. H. Choe (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, Seoul: Dong In, pp. 191-220.Marusic, F. (2008). If non-simultaneous spell-out exists, this is what it can explain. GLOW Newsletter 56.Matushansky, O. (2005). Going through a phase. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Perspectives on Phases, pp. 157–181. Cambridge, Mass: Department of Linguistics, MITWPLMegerdoomian, K. (2003). Asymmetries in form and meaning: surface realization and the interface conditions. Presented at Approaching Asymmetry at the Interfaces, UQaM, Motreal, Oct. 24-25, 2003.Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence:sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oku, S. (1998). A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Ott, D. (2008). Notes on noun ph(r)ases. Ms., Harvard University.Özgen, M., & Aydın, Ö. (2016). What Type of Defective Feature Do Exceptionally Case-Marked Clauses of Turkish Bear?. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(04), pp. 302-325.Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Quicoli, C. A. (2008). Anaphora by phase. Syntax 11:3, Blackwell, pp. 299-329.Raposo, E. (2002). Nominal gaps with prepositional modifiers in Portuguese and Spanish: a case of quick spell-out. IUOG WPL 9: pp. 127-144.Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Ross, J. R. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In Bierwisch and Heidolph (eds) Progress in Linguistics, Mouton & Co., The Hague.Rouveret, A. (2012). VP ellipsis, phases and the syntax of morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(3), pp. 897-963.Saito, M. (2007) Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis, Language Research 43, pp. 203-227.Shiobara, K. (2009). A Phonological View of Phases. In Kleanthes Grhomann (ed) InterPhases, pp. 182-201 New York: OUP.Svenious, P. (2003). Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd 31: 431-445.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. & Takahashi D. (2010). Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61: pp. 325-339.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)Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede Belirleyici Öbeği. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı. Ankara, Türkiye.Turan, Ü. D. (2002). Ayrık Tümce. In G. König, N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, F. Karahan (eds) XVI. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. pp.. 59-68.Ulutaş, S. (2009). Feature inheritance and subject Case in Turkish. Essays on Turkish Linguistics Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden, 141-151.van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases, Lisse: The Peter de Ridder 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.Wexler, K. & Peter W. C. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Yoshida, M., & Gallego, Á. J. (2008). Phases and ellipsis. In 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.