jlr Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1300-8552 2587-0939 Dilbilim Derneği 10.18492/dad.464486 Observations on Universal Base Hypothesis: An Evaluation on OV Order Evrensel Taban Varsayımı Üzerine Gözlemler https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7960-6627 Özgen Murat Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi 12 26 2019 30 2 171 198 09 27 2018 12 01 2019 Copyright © 1990, Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1990 Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi

Universal base hypotheses maintain the idea thatall languages have the same underlying word order. This is a strong minimalistargument that bans all parametric variations of word order. However, it iscontroversial in the sense that it bears too strong arguments as to theuniversality of word order paradigm. The polarization over this hypothesis hasrecently increased the conceptual and empirical observations on the phenomenon.Universal base arguments are grouped into two distinct poles. On the one pole,we see arguments of Kayne defending the VO order, who claims that OV isbasically derived by leftward movements. On the other pole, Haider (1997, 2000,2013), Barbiers (2000) and Fukui & Takano (1998, 2000) argue theuniversality of OV. With this assumption VO is basically derived by movement ofthe verb alone, which makes this word order more basic than VO. The aim of thisstudy is to discuss the basic arguments of VO over Turkish data and reassessthe arguments.

Evrensel TabanVarsayımı tüm dillerin temelde aynı dizilişe sahip olduğunu öne süren birvarsayımdır. Bu varsayım, temelde değiştirgene dayalı sözcük dizilişigörünümlerinden arındığı için yetinmeci olduğu kadar alanyazında sık sıktartışılan da bir konudur. Bu varsayım üzerindeki kutuplaşma, evrensel tabanıntemelde hangi dizilişle başladığı konusundaki incelemeleri ve deneyselgözlemleri arttırmıştır. Kutbun bir tarafında, Kayne (1994, 2010) Çizgisel Örtüşme Belitini (LinearCorrespondence Axiom) önermiş ve tüm NE (=OV) dizilişlerinin aslında EN (=VO)dizilişinden sola doğru taşımalarla türetildiğini belirtmiştir. Diğer kutuptaise, Haider (1997, 2000, 2013), Barbiers (2000) ile Fukui ve Takano (1998,2000) gibi araştırıcılar NE-tabanlı bir diziliş önermiş ve bu dizilişin EN’yitüretmek için yalnızca eylemi taşıması gerektiğinden daha basit bir dizilişolduğunu savunmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı ‘EN temel diziliştir’ savına ilişkintemel sayıltıları Türkçe üzerinden tartışıp savları yeniden değerlendirmektir.

 Evrensel Taban Varsayımı EN dizilişi NE dizilişi çizgiselleştirme Universal Base Hypothesis OV order VO order linearization Abney, S. P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Baker, M. C. (2005). On Verb-initial and Verb-final Word Orders in Lokaa., Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 26, 125-164. Barbiers, S. (2000). The right periphery in SOV languages. The derivation of VO and OV, 181-218. Bowers, J. (1991). The Syntax and Semantics of Nominals. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1: 1-30. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. U. (eds.). In Step by step (s. 89-156). Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. A. B. (ed.) In Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. (eds.) Freidin, Otero and Zubizaretta) In Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory. MIT Press. Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1984). The function of word order. California: University of California Press. Fox, D., & David P. (2005). Cyclic Linearization of syntactic structure. In Object shift, ed. by Katalin E. Kiss, special issue, Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2):1–46. Fukui, N., & Takano, Y. (1998). Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and demerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27-86.. Fukui, N., & Takano, Y. (2000). Nominal structure: An extension of the symmetry principle. The derivation of VO and OV, 219-254. Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar, New York: Routledge. Griffiths, J. & Güneş, G. (2015). Ki issues in Turkish: Parenthetical coordination and adjunction. In M. E. Kluck, D. Ott & M. de Vries (eds.), Parenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 173-217). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haider, H. (1997). Precedence among predicates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 3-41. Haider, H. (2000). OV is more basic than VO. (ed.) P. Svenonius. In The derivation of VO and OV (s. 45-68). John Benjamins. Haider, H. (2013). Symmetry breaking in syntax (No. 136). Cambridge University Press. Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. İşsever, S. (2007). Nesne Kaydırımı ve Türkçe. XXI. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, 10-11 Mayıs, Mersin. Kandybowicz, J. & Baker, M. C. (2003). On Directionality and the Structure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe, Syntax 6, 115-155. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Kayne, R. S. (2010). Why are there no directionality parameters. Ms., New York University. Kelepir, M. (1996). The implications of antisymmetry theory of syntax on Turkish word order. Unpublished MA Thesis, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi. Kennelly, S. D. (1990). Theta government in Turkish. Ms. University of Siena. Kennelly, S. D. (1994). The syntax of clausal determiners: Subject/object asymmetry in participles. In G. B. (ed.), Teoria del linguaggio e analisi linguistica (pp. 253-273). Padova, Italy: Unipress. Kennelly, S. D. (2004). Quantificational dependencies. Dissertation, Utrecht. Keskin, C. (2009). Subject Agreement-Dependency of Accusative Case in Turkish or Jump-starting Grammatical Machinery. The Netherlands: LOT Publishing. Kiparsky, P. ve Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. Semantics. D. Steinberg ve L . Jacobovits (haz.). London: CUP. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Blackwell: Routledge. Kornfilt, J. (2005). Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish In J. Sabel, & M. Saito, The Free Word Order Phenomenon (pp. 181-221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. [Manuscript, ver.1. UCLA.]. Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal constituents and Linear Correspondence Axiom in Turkish. The Linguistic Inquiry (28), 498-519. Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar, Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Longobardi, G. (1994), Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 4, ss. 609-665. Özge, U. & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua, 120:132–175. Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass. Ross, J. R. (1968). Universal constraints on variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT. Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede Belirleyici Öbeği. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı. Ankara, Türkiye. Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-out. In Samuel D. Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (haz.), Working minimalism (pp. 251-282). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Zwart, C. J. (1994). Dutch is head-initial. The Linguistic Review (11), 377-406. Zwart, C. J. (2002). The antisymmetry of Turkish. Generative Grammar in Geneva (3), 23. Zwart, J. W. (2009). Relevance of typology to minimalist inquiry. Lingua,119(11), 1589-1606