@article{article_436226, title={Binding in Turkish Nominal Phrases and Phase-Sliding}, journal={Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi}, volume={30}, pages={145–170}, year={2019}, DOI={10.18492/dad.436226}, author={Özgen, Murat}, keywords={phase-sliding,phasehood,binding,DP,nominal phrases}, abstract={<p style="margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.2px;background-color:rgb(251,251,243);"> <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;">There are studies
within literature which claim that nominal phrases such as DPs also constitute
phases in addition to <i>v </i>*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 </span> <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;">phase-sliding. 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 H <sup>0 </sup> is raised to another head X <sup>0 </sup> to form a
complex [H <sup>0 </sup>+X <sup>0 </sup>]. 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. </span> <br /> </p>}, number={2}, publisher={Dilbilim Derneği}