Intervention Obviation by Pied-piping in Turkish

Ömer Demirok

doi:10.18492/dad.1748480

TR EN

Türkçede Sürüklemeli Ne-taşıma ile Yorumlanamazlıktan Kaçınma

Öz

Türkçe gibi tipik ne-taşıma işlemi göstermeyen dillerde dahi, bir ne-öbeğinin (olumsuz uyum ögesi gibi) başka bir açısal ögeye göre geniş açı almasının mümkün olamadığı durumlar vardır. Arayagirme olarak adlandırabileceğimiz bu durumlardan ne-öbeğinin yapıyı yorumlanamaz kılan ögenin soluna taşınması ile kaçınılabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, bu tür ne-taşıma işlemlerinde, ne-öbeğinin parçası olduğu daha büyük bir ögeyi (seçimli ya da zorunlu olarak) peşinden sürüklediği durumlar incelenmektedir. Peşinden sürükleme yapılarını yorumlamayı sağlayan bir bileşimsel anlam çözümlemesi yöntemi kullanılarak, daha önce sözdizim alanyazınından önerilen görüşlerin ışığında, sürüklemenin kuraldışı geniş açının üretimini sağlayan bir bileşimsel yöntem olduğu savunulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Intervention Obviation by Pied-piping in Turkish

Abstract

Even in wh-in-situ languages like Turkish, there are configurations where a wh-phrase fails to take scope in-situ above another scopal element (such as negative concord items). These configurations known as intervention configurations can be obviated via overt movement of the wh-phrase to the left of the element causing the uninterpretability. In this study, I document cases where such overt movement of the wh-phrase (optionally or necessarily) pied-pipes a larger constituent it is part of. Adopting a compositional semantics for interpreting pied-piping structures, I argue that pied-piping is a general mechanism for exceptional scope, compositionally implementing earlier insights in the syntax literature.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

No financial support was received for the study.

Ethical Statement

This study has not been previously published elsewhere. It is not under review in another journal. Publication of the study has been approved, either implicitly or explicitly, by all authors and the responsible authorities at the university/research center where the study was conducted. If the study is accepted for publication, it will not be published in the same form in another printed or electronic medium in Turkish or any other language without the written permission of the Journal of Linguistics Research.

References

Akar, D. (1990). Wh-questions in Turkish [Master’s Thesis]. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Arslan, C. (1999). Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish [Master’s Thesis]. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Atlamaz, Ü. (2023). A bidimensional semantics for questions. Zemin, 6, 82-127. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10435936
Beck, S. (1996). Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 1-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00263536
Beck, S. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y
Beck, S, & Shin-Sook K. (1997). On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6, 339–384. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008280026102
Cable, S. (2010). The grammar of Q: QpParticles, Wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford University Press.
Çakır, S. (2015). Island constraints in Turkish: A grammaticality judgment study. In D. Zeyrek et al. (Eds.), Ankara papers in Turkish and Turkic linguistics (pp. 68-76). Harrassowitz Verlag.

Çakır, S. (2016). Island constraints and adjunct & argument asymmetry in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 27(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.282138
Charlow, S. (2020). The scope of alternatives: indefiniteness and islands. Linguistics and Philosophy 43. 427–472.
Cheng, L. L. (2003). Wh-in-situ. Glot International, 7(4), 103-109.
Dayal, V. (2016). Questions. Oxford University Press.
Demirok, Ö. (2019). Scope theory revisited: Lessons from pied-piping in wh-questions. [Doctoral Dissertation, MIT]. DSpace@MIT. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124104
Demirok, Ö. (2021). Intervention effects follow from scope rigidity in Turkish. Proceedings of the 31st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference [SALT 31]. 82–103.
Duguine, M, & Irurtzun, A. (2014). From obligatory WH-movement to optional WH-in-situ in Labourdin Basque. Language, 90, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2014.v0i0.11
von Fintel, Kai, & Irene Heim. (2001). Intensional semantics. MIT Lecture notes for Advanced Semantics. MIT.
Fox, D. (2012). The semantics of questions. Lecture notes, MIT.
Görgülü, E. (2006). Variable wh-words in Turkish [Master’s Thesis]. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus, postverbal position. In Lars Johanson (Ed.) The Mainz meeting proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics Aug 3-6, 1994 (pp. 85-106). Harrassowitz Verlag.
Hamblin, C L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 1, 41-53.
Heim, I. (2000). Notes on Interrogative Semantics. MIT Lecture notes for Advanced Semantics.
Heim, I, & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
Hoji, H. (1985). Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Washington.
Huhmarniemi, S. (2010). The locality of snowballing wh-movement in Finnish. Handout from GIST 1Workshop: Antilocality and Snowballing movement, Belgium, June 24-25.
Huhmarniemi, S. (2012). Finnish A’-movement: Edges and islands [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Helsinki.
İşsever, S. (2009). A syntactic account of wh-in-situ in Turkish. In S. Ay, et al. (Eds.), Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 103-112). Harrassowitz Verlag.
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics & Philosophy 1: 3–44.
Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope [Doctoral Dissertation, MIT). DSpace@MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8196
Kesen, Y. (2010). Intervention effects in simple Wh-questions in Turkish [Master’s Thesis]. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Kornfilt, J. (2008). Some observations on Turkish/Turkic RCs. Paper given at Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity, MPI-EVA Conference, Leipzig.
Mayr, C. (2020). Intervention effects. In D. Gutzmann et al. (Eds.) The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. John Wiley & Sons.
Özsoy, A. S. (1996). A’-dependencies in Turkish. Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics 5, 139–158.
Özyıldız, D. (2017). Quantifiers in Turkish. In D. Paperno and E. L. Keenan (Eds.) Handbook of quantifiers in natural language: Volume II. Studies in linguistics and philosophy 97 (pp. 859-939). Springer.
Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. MIT Press.
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005349801431
Reinhart, T. (1998). Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008240014550
Richards, N. (2000). An island effect in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008342011424
Shimoyama, J. (2006). Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 139–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-0001-5
von Stechow, A. (1996). Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 57–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00263537

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax) , Lexicography and Semantics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ömer Demirok ^*
0000-0002-2536-5247
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 30, 2025

Submission Date

July 23, 2025

Acceptance Date

November 16, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 36 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1748480

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA57HK68BB

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Demirok, Ö. (2025). Intervention Obviation by Pied-piping in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 36(2), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1748480