ZENGİN UYUM DİLLERİNDE ÖRTÜK VE AÇIK ÖZNELER

Year 2020, Volume: 171 Issue: 2, 119 - 159, 07.07.2020

Kadri Kuram

https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.709105

Abstract

Chomsky’nin (1982) Genişletilmiş Yansıtma İlkesi (GYİ) öznenin gönderiminin eylem üzerindeki uyum biçimbirimi veya uyumun olmadığı durumlarda söylemden çıkarılabildiği dillerde ihlâl edilmektedir. Örtük özne olgusu olarak bilinen bu durum kuramsal dilbilim alanında çokça tartışma ve araştırmanın konusu olmuştur. Ayrıca, bu dillerde örtük özneler o kadar yaygındır ki özneler ancak belli koşullarda açık özne olarak gerçekleşir. Ancak bu koşullar sağlandığında özne açık olarak görünmek zorundadır. Yani, söylem koşulları yerine getirildiğinde ne olursa olsun özne açık olmak zorundadır. Bu makalede, bir örtük özne dili olan Türkçede öznelerin hangi koşullarda ve neden örtük veya açık olmak zorunda olduğu araştırılmaktadır. Bu tartışmanın bir parçası olarak da Holmberg’in (2005, 2010a) örtük özne tipolojisi için önerdiği kuramsal açıklama ile örtüşmeyen veriler sunulmaktadır. Makale ayrıca Roberts’ın (2010) özne slime önerisinin daha basit bir versiyonunu sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Örtük özne değiştirgeni, fakirleştirme, adıl silme, genel gönderimli örtük özne, belirtililik

NULL/OVERT SUBJECTS IN RICH AGREEMENT LANGUAGES

Abstract

Chomsky’s (1982) Extended Projection Principle (EPP) seems to be voided in some languages where the reference of subject can be recovered either from the agreement morphology on verb or from discourse where agreement is not available. Known as the null subject phenomenon, this has sparkled a great deal of discussion and cross-linguistic research in theoretical linguistics. Furthermore, null subjects are so common in null subject languages that subjects can only surface under strict conditions. Yet when these conditions are met null subject languages behave like non-null subject languages. That is, under the right discourse conditions subjects have to be overt regardless. I investigate in this paper how and why subjects remain unexpressed as well as how and why they have to be expressed in a null subject language; namely Turkish. In doing so, I reveal novel data contradicting the predictions made by Holmberg (2005, 2010a) regarding the theoretical account and classification of null subject languages. Finally, I offer a minimalist version of the subject deletion method developed by Roberts (2010) for null subjects.

Keywords

Null subject parameter, impoverishment, pro deletion, generic null subject, definiteness, discourse roles

References

• Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. Anderson, S. (1982). Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571-612. Aydın, Ö. (2004). Türkçe zarf tümcelerinde özne konumu (The subject position in the adverbial clauses). Dil Dergisi 124: 7-17. Baerman M., Brown, D. and Corbett, G. G. (2005). The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baggaley, V. (1998). The Syntactic Category of Pronouns. MA thesis. The University of Calgary. Biberauer, T. (2010). Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 163-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borer, H. (1986). I-subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 17 375-416. Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric Agr. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 69–109. Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed) Clitics and other functional categories in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 145-233. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: Martin R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Corbett, Grevelli G. (2004). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Nantes. Déchaine, Rose M. and Wiltschko, M. (2002). Decomposing Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409-442. Duguine, M. (2012). Basque nominalizations and the role of structural case in the licensing of null arguments. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Ricardo Etxepare and Myriam Uribe- Etxeberria (eds.) Noun Phrases and Nominalization in Basque: syntax and semantics John Benjamins Publishing Company, 333-374. Duguine, M. (2013). Null arguments and linguistic variation: A minimalist analysis of pro- drop. Ph.D. dissertation. University of the Basque country UPV/EHU and Université. Erdal, M. (2004). A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish Grammar. London: University of California Press. Fassi Fehri, A. (2009). Arabic silent pronouns, person and voice. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic, Language and Linguistics 1: 1-38. Fedden, S. and Corbett, Greville G. (2017). Gender and classifiers in concurrent systems: Refining the typology of nominal classification. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1): 34. 1–47. Frascarelli, M. (2007). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 691–734. Gilligan, Gary M. (1987). A cross linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California. Giorgi, A. and F. Pianesi. (1997). Tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish, A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Grimshaw, J. and Samek-Lodovici, V. (1998). Optimal subjects. P. Barbosai D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, and D. Pesetsky (eds.) Is the best good enough? Papers from Workshop on Optimality in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Gültekin Şener, N. & Şener, S. (2011). Null subject, indexicality in Turkish and Uyghur. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL7), ed. by Andrew Simpson. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Halle, M. (1997). Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang & M. McGinnis, (eds.), Papers at the Interface. Vol. 30, MITWPL, 425–449. Holmberg, A. (2005). 'Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish,' Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 36 (4), pp. 533–64. Holmberg, A. (2010a). Null Subject Parameters. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmberg, A. (2010b). The null generic pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation in T. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200– 230. Holmberg, A. and Sheehan, M. (2010). Control into finite clause in partial null subject languages. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 125-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huang, J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–74. Huang, Y. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 185–214. Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora. A cross-linguistic study. New York: Oxford University Press. İşsever, S. (2007). Towards a Unified Account of Clause-initial Scrambling in Turkish: A feature analysis. Turkic Languages 11: 93-123. Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (1989). The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric Theory. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir, (eds.) The Null Subject Parameter. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1-44. Johanson, L. (1988). On the renewal and reinterpretation of ‘instrumental’ gerunds in Turkic. Oriens 31: 136-153. Johanson, L. (1995). On Turkic converb clauses. In: Haspelmath, M. and König, E. (Eds.) Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms- Adverbial Participles, Gerunds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Kornfilt, J. (1986). The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In: Aksu-Koç, A. and Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference in Turkish Linguistics. İstanbul: Bosphorus University Publications. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Descriptive Grammars. London: Routledge. Krezk, M. (2013). Interpretation and voice in Polish SIE and –NO/-TO constructions. In Irina Kor Chahine (ed.) Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 185-198. Krezk, M. (2017). The null subject parameter meets the Polish impersonal -NO/-TO construction. In Michelle Sheehan & Laura R. Bailey (eds.), Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure. Berlin: Language Science Press, 307–318. Müller, G. (2005). Pro-drop and impoverishment. In P. Brandt and E. Fuss (eds) Form, structure and grammar. A Festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Tübingen: Narr, 93–115. Noguchi, T. (1997). Two Types of Pronouns and Variable Binding. Language 73, 770-797. Nune, J. (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Özsoy, S. A. (1987). The null subject parameter and Turkish. In H. E. Boeschoten and L. Th. Verhoeven (eds.) Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 82–91. Öztürk, B. (2001). Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In: Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (ed.) The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Öztürk, B. (2006). Null Arguments in Turkish. In: Boeckx, C. (ed.) Minimalist Essays Linguistik Aktuell, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Platzack, C. (2004). Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 73: 83-112. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Postal, P. M. (1966). On so-called pronouns in English. In D. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.) Moderns Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 201-203. Ritter, E. (1995). On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 405-443. Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501-557. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Netherlands: Springer. Rizzi, L. (1997). Relativized Minimality Effects. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell, 89-111. Rizzi, L. (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N. (eds.) On Wh Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Roberts, I. (2004). Some Consequences of a Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects. In LAGB. Surrey, Roehampton. Roberts, I. (2010). A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 58-87 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rohrbacher, B. (1999). Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-Drop. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Schlenker, P. (2003). A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 1, (pp. 29-120). Sheehan, M. (2006). The EPP and null subjects in Romance. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University. Sheehan, M. (2016.) Subjects, null subjects and expletives in Romance. In S. Fischer & S. Gabriel (eds.), Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL): Grammatical Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter , 329-362. Shklovsky, K. & Sudo, Y. (2014). The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 45, Number 3, pp. 381-402. Slobin, D. (1995). Converbs in Turkish child language: The grammaticalization of event coherence. In: Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (eds.) Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms- Adverbial Participles, Gerunds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Speas, P. & Tenny, C. (2003). Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles. In DiSciullo, A. (ed.) Asymmetry in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315-344. Taraldsen, T. (1980). On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Tosun, G. (1998). The SPLIT INF hypothesis in Turkish. MA thesis. Bosphorus University.