Long distance scrambling and operator movement in Turkish

Year 2020, , 440 - 457, 29.03.2020

Sinan Çakır

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712873

Abstract

The present study focuses on long distance scrambling and operator movement from embedded clauses to sentence initial position in Turkish. It proposes that the scrambling of the arguments out of the complement clauses is possible due to the fact that such phrases move cyclically through phases in Turkish. It is also asserted that the adjuncts that have nominal features can scramble to the sentence initial position by using the spec DP position as an escape hatch similar to the arguments. On the other hand, the Phase Impenetrability Condition is violated in the movement of the non-nominal adjuncts out of such clauses. In the analysis of the adjunct clauses, it is asserted that the Late Adjunction Hypothesis successfully explains all types of extractions out of such clauses in Turkish. Arguments, adjuncts or their operators cannot be moved out of relative clauses or adverbial clauses since these clauses adjoin to the derivation post-cyclically. Turkish data support the assertion that extractions out of adjuncts are banned universally.

Keywords

Turkish; operator movement; scrambling; PIC; LAH

References

• Abels, K. (2012). Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Akan, T. (2009). On scrambling in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
• 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 Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
• Arslan Kechriotis, C. (2009). Determiner Phrase and Case in Turkish: A Minimalist Account. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
• Aygen, G. (2002). T-to-C: Extractable subjects and EPP in Turkish. In V. Samiian (Ed.), The proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, (pp. 65-80). Fresno: California State University.
• Aygen, G. (2011). Reduced relatives and the location of agreement. California Linguistic Notes, 36 (1), 1-30.
• Baier, N. (2014). Long distance wh-movement in Seereer: Implications for intermediate movement. Presented as a paper in the 38th Penn Linguistics Conference, University of Pennsylvania.
• Biskup, P. (2007). Phase feature-driven EPP-features and EPP-feature-driven subjacency in Czech. In P. Kosta& L. Schürcks (Eds.), Linguistic investigation into formal description of Slavic Languages, (pp. 127-146). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and chains. Stranding as resumption. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Boskovic, Z. (2004). Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,22 (4), 681-742.
• Boskovic, Z. (2005). On the locality of the left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica, 59, 1–45.
• Boskovic.Z. (2013).Phases beyond clauses. In L. Schurcks, A. Giannakidou, U. Etxeberria & P. Kosta (Eds.), Nominal Constructions in Slavic and Beyond, (pp. 75-128.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
• Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT 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. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: 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.
• Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, (pp. 134–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Çağrı, I. M. (2005).Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
• Den Dikken, M. (2007). Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 1–41.
• Despic, M. (2011). Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
• Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Forker, D. (2014).A canonical approach to the argument & adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery, 12 (2), 27-40.
• Fox, D. & Nissenbaum, J. (1999). Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen, & P. Norquest (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,(pp. 132-44).Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
• Fox, D. (2002). Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33 (1), 63-96.
• Görgülü, E. (2006). Variable wh-words in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
• Gürel, A. (2003). Is the Overt Pronoun Constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In J.M Liceras, H. Zobl and H. Goodluck (Eds.), The proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, (pp. 130-139). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
• Heck, F. & Müller, G. (2000). Successive cyclicity, long-distance superiority, and local optimization. Presented as a paper in WCCFL 19.
• Heck, F., Müller, G. and Trommer J. (2008). A phase-based approach to Scandinavian definiteness marking. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, (pp. 226–233). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Projects.
• Henderson, B. (2007). Matching and raising unified. Lingua ,117, 202-220.
• Hoffman, B. (1995). The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of "Free" Word Order in Turkish. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
• Hole, D. (2015).Arguments and adjuncts. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax; Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook. (pp. 1285-1321). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
• Huang, C. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Hwang, J. D. (2011). Making verb argument adjunct distinctions in English; Synthesis paper. Retrieved on February 17, 2018 from: http://verbs.colorado.edu/~hwangd/docs/synthesis-jena_d_hwang.pdf
• Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
• Kornfilt, J. (2003). Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In U. Junghanns & L.Szucsich (Eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information,(pp. 129-215). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyder.
• Kornfilt, J. (2005). Agreement and its placement in Turkic nonsubject relative clauses. In G. Cinque & R. S. Kayne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, (pp. 513-541). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kural, M. (1992).Properties of Turkish scrambling. Unpublished MA thesis, UCLA.
• Kural, M. (1997).Postverbal Constitutes in Turkish and Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry, (28),3, 498-519.
• Lebeaux, D. (1991). Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Syntax and Semantics, 25, 209-229.
• Meral, H. M. (2004).Resumptive Pronouns in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Nissenbaum, J. (1998). Derived predicates and the interpretation of parasitic gaps. In K. Shahin, S. Blake & E. S. Kim (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,(pp.507-521). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Nunes, J. & Uriagereka, J. (2000).Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax, 3 (1), 20–43.
• Özsoy, A. S. (1996). A'-Dependencies in Turkish; in B. Rona (Ed.), Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, vol. 1 (111-125). Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
• Özsoy, S. (2005). Topic, focus, multiple specifiers, multiple spell-out. Presented as a paper at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting, University of the Aegean, Rhodes.
• Özsoy, S. (2009). Turkish as a (non)-wh-in-situ language . In E. A.Csato, G. Ims, J. Parslow, F. Thiesen, & E. Türker (Eds.), Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen (221-232). Oslo; Novus forlag.
• Punske, J. (2011). Escape hatches and the derivation of the DP. Presented as a poster at WCCFL 29, April 22-24, 2011, University of Arizona.
• Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.) Elements of grammar, (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Rizzi, L. (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In L. L. Cheng & N. Corver (Eds.), Wh Movement: Moving On,(pp. 97-133). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Rizzi, L. (2010). On some properties of criterial freezing. In E. P. Panagiotidis (Ed.), The complementizer phase: Subjects and operators, vol. 1, (pp. 17–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished PhD. dissertation. MIT: Cambridge.
• Sauerland, U. (1998). The meaning of chains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
• Skinner, T. (2005).Cyclic derivation in partial wh-movement. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 19 (2), 103-135.
• Stepanov, A. (2001). Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax, 4, (2), 94-125.
• Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10 (1), 80-126.
• Takahashi, D. (1994). Minimality of movement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Storrs: University of Connecticut.
• van Urk, C. &Richards, N. (2015). Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry, 46, 113-155.
• Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Yarbay Duman, T., Aygen, G. & Bastiaanse, R. (2008). The production of Turkish relative clauses in agrammatism: Verb inflection and constituent order. Brain and Language, 105 (3), 149-160.