What Type of Defective Feature Do Exceptionally Case-Marked Clauses of Turkish Bear?
- 1 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey
- 2 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Language-History and Geography, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
Core Functional Categories are defined to be v 0 , T 0 , C 0 . They differ in that T 0 is not treated as a phase head, while C 0 and v 0 are assumed to be phase heads: 1) a) [+ phase]: C 0 , v (*). b) [- phase]: T 0 . These heads are assumed to bear uninterpretable φ-features. T 0 forms a defective a domain unless it is selected by C 0 . In other words, if T 0 is selected by the phase head C 0 , it starts bearing a full φ-feature set; otherwise, it cannot inherit the features from C 0 , which leads to a defective domain allowing exceptional case marking ( henceforth , ECM). Accordingly, T 0 cannot also delete the features of the goal it enters an agree relation. In this respect, the defective features are Case/T 0 features in the sense of Pesetsky & Torrego (2007). At this point, some other studies suggest that the defectivity is peculiar to only phase heads, and that T 0 is ruled out of this argumentation: 2) a) [+ [+/- defective]]: C 0 , v 0 . b) [- [+/- defective]]: T 0 . There is an asymmetry in the understanding of defectivity between these two reasoning. The aim of this study is to discuss this asymmetry, and present evidence as to which distinction on defectivity does exist. We employed ECM data in Turkish to discuss the relevant distinction with reference to specific empirical proofs such as long distance scrambling, binding and negative polarity items. The results of the study support in favor of Pesetsky & Torrego (2007).
- Aygen, G. (2002). Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
- Boskovic, Z. (1997). The Syntax of Non-Finite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin et al. (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. (2005). On Phases. Ms., MIT.
- Dayal, V. S. (1994). Binding Facts in Hindi and the Scrambling Phenomenon. In M. Butt, T. Holloway King, & G. Ramchand (Eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages (pp. 237-261). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
- Erguvanli-Taylan, E. (1996). The Parameter of Aspect in Turkish. Modern Studies in Turkish. In A Konrot (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 12-14 August 1992 (pp. 153-168). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
- Gallego, A. (2007). Phase Theory and Parametric Variation. PhD Dissertation in Cognitive Science and Language, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
- Gallego, A. J. (2009). Defective C-T in Romance. Probus, 21, 163-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2009.006
- George, L., & Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and Boundedness. In F. H. Turkish (Ed.), Binding and Filtering (pp. 105-128). London: Croomhellm Ltd.
- Goksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203340769
- Herburger, E. (2001). The Negative Concord Puzzle Revisited. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 289-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014205526722
- Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Knecht, L. (1985). Subject and Object in Turkish. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Boston, MA: MIT.
- Kornfilt, J. (1977). A Note on Subject Raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 736-742.