Sentential Subjects and the Freezing Principle in Turkish

Öz

ÖZ: The Freezing Principle, which claims that nothing can be extracted out of a moved element, was proposed to replace the pre-minimalist subject condition effects. In the present paper, extractions out of sentential subjects have been analyzed to determine the functionality of the Freezing Principle in Turkish. In the analyses the scrambling and wh-movement structures, it was observed that the Freezing Principle successfully explains the violations that take place in such extractions. As for the relativization structures,  the previous studies assert that it is possible to extract elements out of moved phrases in such constructions, which should not be possible under the freezing approach. For such constructions, this paper proposes cyclic movement of the relative clause operator from the lower embedded CP to the upper embedded CP. During this movement, this operator is not extracted out of any moved phrase; therefore, the Freezing Principle is not violated. This paper proposes that Sentential Subject Constraint holds in Turkish and the Freezing Principle successfully explains all instances of ungrammatical sentential subject extractions. 

Anahtar sözcükler:  Generative syntax, Sentential Subject Constraint, The Freezing Principle, Turkish 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Generative syntax,Sentential Subject Constraint,The Freezing Principle,Turkish

Sentential Subjects and the Freezing Principle in Turkish

Öz

Abstract

Kaynakça

1. Aoun, J. & Li, Y. A. 1993. Wh-elements in-situ: syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry, 24 (2),199-238.
2. Arslan, C. 1999. Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
3. Arslan, C. 2006. Case as an uninterpretable feature. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bogazici University, İstanbul, Turkey.
4. Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and chains. Stranding as resumption. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Boskovic, Z. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,22 (4), 681-742.
6. Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian, (Eds.) Formal syntax (pp. 71-132). New York: Academic Press.
7. Çağrı, I. M. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
8. Çakır, S. 2015. Island constraints in Turkish: A Grammaticality judgment study. In D. Zeyrek, Ç. Sağın Şimşek, U. Ataş ve J. Rehbein (Eds.) Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics (pp. 68-76). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

9. Çakır, S. 2016. Island constraints and adjunct & argument asymmetry in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 27 (2). 1-15.
10. Çakır, S. 2018. Long distance scrambling and operator movement in Turkish. In review.
11. Fox, D. and 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.
12. Fox, D. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33 (1), 63-96.
13. Görgülü, E. 2006. Variable wh-words in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
14. Henderson, B. 2007. Matching and raising unified. Lingua ,117, 202-220.
15. Huang, C.T. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
16. Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Kornfilt, J. 2003. Unmasking the Sentential Subject Constraint in Turkish. In A.S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu Demiralp, E.E. Erguvanlı Taylan & A. Aksu Koç (Eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 95-105). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
18. Kornfilt, J. 2008. Some Observations on Turkish/Turkic RCs. Paper given at Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity; MPI-EVA Conference, Leipzig.
19. Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Syntax and Semantics, 25, 209-29.
20. Meral, H. M. 2004. Resumptive pronouns in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
21. Nissenbaum, J. 1998. Derived predicates and the interpretation of parasitic gaps. In K. Shahin, S. Blake, and E. S. Kim (eds.). The Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. (pp. 507-521). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
22. Özçelik, Ö. (2006). Processing relative clauses in Turkish as a second language. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
23. Öztürk, B. 2005. Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
24. 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.
25. 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,
26. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. MIT: Cambridge.
27. Sauerland, U. 1998. The meaning of chains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
28. Stepanov, A. 2001. Late Adjunction and Minimalist Phrase Structure. Syntax 4, (2): 94-125.
29. Stepanov, A. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10 (1), 80-126.
30. Takahashi, D. 1994. Minimality of movement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Storrs: University of Connecticut.
31. Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
32. Yarbay Duman, T., Aygen, G., & B., Roelien. 2008. The production of Turkish relative clauses in agrammatism: Verb inflection and constituent order. Brain and Language, 105 (3), 149-160.