Theses and Dissertations from UMD
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2
New submissions to the thesis/dissertation collections are added automatically as they are received from the Graduate School. Currently, the Graduate School deposits all theses and dissertations from a given semester after the official graduation date. This means that there may be up to a 4 month delay in the appearance of a give thesis/dissertation in DRUM
More information is available at Theses and Dissertations at University of Maryland Libraries.
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Dimensions of Ellipsis: Investigations in Turkish(2009) Ince, Atakan; Lasnik, Howard; Linguistics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This dissertation examines the elliptical structures of (a) sluicing (John called someone, but I don't know who!), (b) fragment answers (A: Who did John call?, B: Mary!), (c) gapping (John is eating ice-cream, and Mary apple pie!), and (d) Right Node Raising (John cooked and Mary ate the apple pie!) in Turkish and gives a `PF-deletion'-based analysis of all these elliptical structures. As to sluicing and fragment answers, evidence in support of PF-deletion comes from P-(non-)stranding and Case Matching, respectively. Further, these elliptical structures are island-insensitive in Turkish. As to gapping, this study gives a `movement + deletion' analysis, in which remnants in the second conjunct raise to the left periphery of the second conjunct and the rest of the second conjunct is elided. One striking property of gapping in Turkish is that it is a root phenomenon; in other words, it cannot occur in complement clauses, for instance. As to Right Node Raising, again, a PF-deletion analysis is given: the identical element(s) in the first conjunct is/are elided under identity with (an) element(s) in the second conjunct. The striking property of RNR is that remnants in this elliptical structure may not be clause-mate, in contrast to other elliptical structures -where remnants can be non-clause-mate under very specific contexts. This, I suggest, is due to the fact that PF-deletion in RNR applies at a later derivational stage than in other elliptical structures. In this stage, a syntactic derivation consists of linearized (sub-)lexical forms, where there is no hierarchical representation. This also suggests that Markovian system exists in grammar. In brief, this thesis looks at different elliptical structures in Turkish, and gives arguments for PF-deletion for all these elliptical structures, which has interesting implications for the generative theory.Item (DIS)AGREE: MOVEMENT AND AGREEMENT RECONSIDERED(2007-04-25) Chandra, Pritha; Hornstein, Norbert; Linguistics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This dissertation examines Agree, a narrow syntactic, long-distance operation underlying phi-agreement in the grammar. Taking the strong minimalist thesis (cf. Chomsky 2000) as my point of departure, I question Agree on both conceptual and empirical grounds. On the conceptual side, the operation is suspect first for its language-specific character. Second, it also fails to be justified on the grounds of general architectural constraints and legibility requirements. Further, evidences of various long-distance agreement from across languages examined here question the empirical basis for Agree built throughout the previous literature. As far as this is true, I contend that the faculty of language has nothing beyond Merge and Move/Internal Merge, the first being inevitable in any language-like system and the latter necessitated by interface exigencies. My purpose in this dissertation is to show that these two operations suffice to obtain phi-agreement in natural language.Item Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses(2005-12-08) Cagri, Ilhan Merih; Hornstein, Norbert; Pietroski, Paul; Linguistics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Turkish relative clauses display a subject/non-subject asymmetry. The subject relative (SR) is licensed for relativization from [Spec, TP]. Whereas the non-subject relative (NSR) is never acceptable for subject relativization, the SR is licensed in clauses where there is no external argument, and when relativizing a non-subject in clauses where the subject is non-specific. Within the framework of the Minimalist Program, Turkish RCs are explained in terms of satisfaction of the EPP of T by a D feature and Minimality effects. As long as no nominal expression intervenes between the relative head and [Spec, TP], the SR is licensed. The SR, then, can be used as a diagnostic for movement through TP. Minimality effects are incurred when there is an intervening nominal between T° and the RC head, and the SR becomes unacceptable. The proposal is that in Turkish, specific nominals, +human nominals, and Experiencers of psych verbs all contain a DP projection. Non-specifics are NPs which cannot satisfy the EPP. NP subjects cannot move to [Spec, TP], and thus permit the SR form for relativization of non-subjects. NPs create intervention effects, as does PRO, with the exception of subject control PRO which is perhaps a trace of movement. Scrambling ameliorates intervention effects. Once scrambled, expressions are frozen but remain porous for movement of a subconstituent. Differences between inherent and structural Case are suggested with structural case assignment limited to DPs and in a Spec-Head configuration. Structurally case-marked DPs are barred from moving to case-assigning positions unless there is a morphological match. Further proposals include structures for verb classes, including Psych verbs, and structures for infinitivals and +human DPs. Contrastive focus is briefly addressed. Though superficially complex, relativization in Turkish can be accounted for with a minimum of technology. The suggestions here have implications for the theory of the EPP, Case, its assignment and interface conditions, feature satisfaction, and movement.Item On Subordination and the Distribution of PRO(2004-04-30) San Martin, Itziar; Uriagereka, Juan; LinguisticsThis dissertation presents a Minimalist Theory of Control. As for the distribution of PRO, it provides evidence that PRO appears in a configuration of regular Structural Case assignment. This suggests that the complementary distribution between PRO and lexical subjects is not related to Case. It also provides empirical evidence against the Movement analysis of Control, which subsumes Control under Raising, and is compatible with the theoretical view that Theta Roles are configurational, rather than Features. It also renders the so-called Null Case unnecessary. The interpretation of PRO is the result of the need of the Chain of PRO to collapse with the Chain of the antecedent in order to survive at LF. Specifically, PRO is a featureless element and it is not in the Numeration. However, the system resorts to the off-line insertion of PRO to the Derivation to satisfy Theta Theory. This is a Last Resort operation that only takes place when there is no other DP in the Numeration to satisfy the existing Theta Roles. Although it appears in a local relation to a Case assigning Probe [+T], the defective nature of PRO makes it unable to host a Case Value. By FI, the Chain of PRO collapses, in the sense of Martin (1996), with a local Chain. This derives the Control effect. The complementary distribution of NP-trace, PRO and lexical subjects correlates with the degree of defectiveness in the feature composition of T's in each instance. Raising T is Defective ([-T, -person]), Control T is Partial ([+T, -person]) and T in lexical subject licensing is Complete ([+T, +person]). Minimally, [+T] assigns Case to subjects (PRO/lexical). Complete Probes license lexical subjects, where [person] relates to the presence of C. The explanation of why lexical subjects and PRO are in complementary distribution is the following: by Minimality, Partial-T prevents the definition of a Binding Domain. Unlike PRO, lexical subjects need a Domain, and Partial-T does not provide one. Complete-T excludes PRO because Complete-T involves a CP Phase. In this context PRO lacks an antecedent with which to collapse and the Chain of PRO violates FI at LF.