Abstract
The paper proposes
that wh-island constraint does not hold in Turkish, at least for the
constructions that contain more than one wh-phrase. The grammatically
problematic constructions that have been uttered as wh-island violations in
previous studies have been claimed to be weak Complex DP Island violations. The
DP that c-commands the lower CP constitutes a weak DP island for the upper
movement of the elements. Data obtained by Çakır (2016a) support this assertion
since the findings of that study show that interpretation of wh-adjuncts within
lower CPs are problematic even when there are not any intervening island
structures. Another novel assertion proposed in the study is on the scope
problem of the wh-constructions that contain multiple wh-adjuncts in their
lower CPs. When there is more than one wh-adjunct within the embedded CP,
either of them cannot take wide scope individually. The reason for this
situation has been explained to be the absorption process. Once the operators
of the wh-adjuncts are absorbed in lower spec CP position, they are forced to
act together in the rest of the derivation. This process fits to the minimalist
understanding of economy: if one operator can do the job, using two operators
becomes costly.
Keywords
References
- Akar, D. 1990. Wh-questions in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.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 Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
- Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. 232-286.
- Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52.
- Çakır, S. 2016a. “Island constraints and adjunct & argument asymmetry in Turkish”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (29). 1-15.
- Çakır, S. 2016b. “The variability in the interpretation of different types of wh-adjuncts within island structures in Turkish”. Journal of International Scientific Reserach, 9 (46). 48-57.
- 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 Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.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.). In the proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 130-139.
- İşsever, S. 2009. A syntactic account of wh-in-situ in Turkish. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever & D. Peçenek (eds.). Essays on Turkish Linguistics. Harrasowitz, Verlag. 103-112.
- Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. 1970. Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph (eds.) In Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 143-173.
- Kornfilt, J. 2001. “Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses”. In E.E. Taylan (ed.), The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 183-212.
- 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. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. 95-105.
- Kornfilt, J. 2008. Some Observations on Turkish/Turkic RCs. [Paper given at Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity; MPI-EVA Conference, Leipzig.]
- Melnick, R. 2012. Cognitive constraints and in-situ islands. [Paper given at the 9th Annual QP Fest, Stanford University].
- Özsoy, S. 1996. A’ dependencies in Turkish. [Paper given at the VI. Turkish Linguistics Conference; the School of Oriental and African Studies, London.]
- Rizzi, L. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.). Wh Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 97-133.
- Ross, J.R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166.
- Ross, H. 1984. Inner islands. In C. Brugman & M. Macauley (eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. 258 – 265.
- Schafer, R. 1995. “Negation and verb second in Breton”. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory, 13. 135-172.
- Stepanov, A. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10 (1): 80-126.
- Uzun, N. E. 2000. Anaçizgileriyle evrensel dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. İstanbul: Multilingual.
Abstract
Bu çalışmada, Ne-Adası Kısıtlamasının Türkçedeki
işlevselliğini incelemek üzere bu dildeki çoklu ne-yapılarına
odaklanılmaktadır. Çoklu ne-öbeği içeren yapılar bağlamında, bu dilde Ne-Adası
Kısıtlamasının işlevsel olmadığı savunulmaktadır. Özsoy (1996), Arslan (1999)
ve Görgülü (2006) tarafından ne-adası ihlalleri olarak dile getirilen
durumların aslında Zayıf Karmaşık Belirleyici Öbeği ihlalleri olduğu
savunulmaktadır. Alt tümleyici öbeğine k-buyuran belirleyici öbeğinin, tümcecik
içerisindeki öğelerin üst budaklara yükselmesine sorun teşkil eden zayıf bir BÖ
adası oluşturduğu öne sürülmektedir.
Çakır (2016a) tarafından elde edilen veriler bu iddiayı
desteklemektedir. Bahsi geçen bu
çalışmaya göre, herhangi bir ada yapısının mevcut olmadığı durumlarda bile alt
TÜMÖ içinde bulunan ne-eklentilerinin okumaları sorunludur. Mevcut çalışmanın
ortaya attığı bir diğer yeni sav ise alt tümleyici öbeklerinde birden fazla
ne-eklentisi içeren ne-yapılarının açı sorunu üzerinedir. Alt TÜMÖ içerisinde
birden fazla
ne-eklentisinin bulunduğu durumlarda, bunlardan
herhangi biri tek başına tüm tümceyi kapsayacak şekilde geniş açı
alamamaktadır. Bu absorpsiyon işleminin Aoun ve Li (1993) ün ima ettiği gibi
seçimlik bir işlem olmadığı, aksine Minimalist ekonomi anlayışına uygun olarak
zorunlu bir işlem olduğu savunulmaktadır. Çünkü bir işleticinin yapabileceği iş
için iki işletici kullanmak masraflı olacaktır.
Keywords
References
- Akar, D. 1990. Wh-questions in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. 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.
- Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. 232-286.
- Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52.
- Çakır, S. 2016a. “Island constraints and adjunct & argument asymmetry in Turkish”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (29). 1-15.
- Çakır, S. 2016b. “The variability in the interpretation of different types of wh-adjuncts within island structures in Turkish”. Journal of International Scientific Reserach, 9 (46). 48-57.
- 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.). In the proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 130-139.
- İşsever, S. 2009. A syntactic account of wh-in-situ in Turkish. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever & D. Peçenek (eds.). Essays on Turkish Linguistics. Harrasowitz, Verlag. 103-112.
- Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. 1970. Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph (eds.) In Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 143-173.
- Kornfilt, J. 2001. “Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses”. In E.E. Taylan (ed.), The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 183-212.
- 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. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. 95-105.
- Kornfilt, J. 2008. Some Observations on Turkish/Turkic RCs. [Paper given at Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity; MPI-EVA Conference, Leipzig.]
- Melnick, R. 2012. Cognitive constraints and in-situ islands. [Paper given at the 9th Annual QP Fest, Stanford University].
- Özsoy, S. 1996. A’ dependencies in Turkish. [Paper given at the VI. Turkish Linguistics Conference; the School of Oriental and African Studies, London.]
- Rizzi, L. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.). Wh Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 97-133.
- Ross, J.R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166.
- Ross, H. 1984. Inner islands. In C. Brugman & M. Macauley (eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. 258 – 265.
- Schafer, R. 1995. “Negation and verb second in Breton”. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory, 13. 135-172.
- Stepanov, A. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10 (1): 80-126.
- Uzun, N. E. 2000. Anaçizgileriyle evrensel dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. İstanbul: Multilingual.
Details
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 29, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2017 |
Bu eser
Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad