Year 2019, Volume 30 , Issue 2, Pages 145 - 170 2019-12-26

Binding in Turkish Nominal Phrases and Phase-Sliding

Murat ÖZGEN [1]


There are studies within literature which claim that nominal phrases such as DPs also constitute phases in addition to v*Ps and CPs (Chomsky, 2006; Hiraiwa, 2005; Marantz, 2007; Ott, 2008 and Svenious, 2004 among others). Every phase is subject to a strict locality condition, i.e. Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky, 2001), which forms an opaque domain for external probes. As one of the phenomenon subject to this strict locality, anaphor binding is allowed only within a given phase, since each phase is a local domain for the binding to occur. However, binding in Turkish CPs and DPs behave differently from each other. While the former allows only local reflexive binding, the latter allows distant reflexive binding as well. If DPs are also assumed to be phases, then they must not allow distant reflexive binding. I claim that this problem is an extension of an operation referred to as phase-sliding. It is an operation that extends the phase boundary by pushing up the borders of a spell-out domain (Gallego, 2010). It occurs when a phase head H0 is raised to another head X0 to form a complex [H0+X0]. This study aims to show that this operation accounts for the asymmetry between the binding behaviors of the two phases, i.e. DPs and CPs.

phase-sliding, phasehood, binding, DP, nominal phrases
  • Abels, K. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  • Benmamoun, E. (1997). Licensing of negative polarity items in Moroccan Arabic. In Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(2), pp. 263-287.
  • Bošković, Z. & Şener, S. (2012). Turkish NPs. Ms.
  • Bošković, Ž. (2010). Phases beyond clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  • Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. U. (eds), Step by step (pp. 89-156). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2006). Approaching UG from below. Ms.: MIT.
  • Chomsky, N. (2008). On Phases. In Freidin, Otero and Zubizaretta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory. MIT Press.
  • Citko, B. (2014). Phase theory: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  • Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2003). Özgüllük ve belirlilik. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı.
  • Gallego, Á. (2009). Ellipsis by phase. Ms. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
  • Gallego, A. J. (2010). Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Haegemann, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. USA: Blackwell.
  • Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. Ph.D Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Kayabaşı, D. & Özgen, M. (2018). A Phase-Based Account of NPI-Licensing in Turkish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54/1. De Gruyter, Mouton.
  • Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: clausal structure and scope, Ph.D Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
  • Keskin, C. (2009). Subject agreement-dependency of accusative sase in Turkish or jump-starting grammatical machinery. The Netherlands: LOT Publishing.
  • Kumar, R. (2006). Negation and licensing of negative polarity items in Hindi syntax. Taylor & Francis.
  • Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal constituents and Linear Correspondence Axiom in Turkish. The Linguistic Inquiry (28), pp. 498-519.
  • Laka, I. (2013). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. In Anuario del Seminario de FilologíaVasca" Julio de Urquijo", 25(1), pp. 65-136.
  • Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2004). Binding by phase: (Non-)Complementarity in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16: 2. pp. 111-173.
  • Mahajan, A. K. (1990). LF conditions on negative polarity licensing. In Lingua, 80(4), pp. 333-348.
  • Marantz, A. (2007). Phases and words. in S. H. Choe (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, Seoul: Dong In, pp. 191-220.
  • Matushansky, O. (2005). Going through a phase. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Perspectives on Phases, pp. 157–181. Cambridge, Mass: Department of Linguistics, MITWPL
  • Ott, D. (2008). Notes on noun ph(r)ases. Ms., Harvard University.
  • Özgen, M., & Aydın, Ö. (2016). What Type of Defective Feature Do Exceptionally Case-Marked Clauses of Turkish Bear?. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(04), pp. 302-325.
  • Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 36, 355-426.
  • Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Quicoli, C. A. (2008). Anaphora by phase. Syntax 11:3, Blackwell, pp. 299-329.
  • Richards, M. (2007). On phases, phase heads, and functional categories, Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1, 105-127.
  • Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Sezer, F. E. (1991). Issues in Turkish syntax (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).
  • Svenious, P. (2004). On the Edge. In D. Adger, C. D. Cat, & A. G. (eds), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects (pp. 261-287). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Şener, S. (2008). Non-canonical case licensing is canonical: Accusative subjects of CPs in Turkish. University of Connecticut, Retrieved from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~ses01009/Research_files/SENER%20 ACC%20SUBJECTS.PDF (08.10.2017)
  • Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede Belirleyici Öbeği. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı. Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Ulutaş, S. (2008). Feature inheritance and subject Case in Turkish. Ms.
  • Ulutaş, S. (2009). Feature inheritance and subject Case in Turkish. Essays on Turkish Linguistics Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden, 141-151.
  • Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-out. In Samuel D. Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (ed.), Working minimalism (pp. 251-282). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Vasishth, S. (1999). Surface structure constraints on negative polarity and word order in Hindi and English. In The Proceedings of the Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars Conference.
  • Vicente, L. (2007). The syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
Primary Language en
Subjects Social
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Author: Murat ÖZGEN
Institution: DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : December 26, 2019

APA Özgen, M . (2019). Binding in Turkish Nominal Phrases and Phase-Sliding . Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi , 30 (2) , 145-170 . DOI: 10.18492/dad.436226