Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses
dc.contributor.advisor | Hornstein, Norbert | en_US |
dc.contributor.advisor | Pietroski, Paul | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Cagri, Ilhan Merih | en_US |
dc.contributor.department | Linguistics | en_US |
dc.contributor.publisher | Digital Repository at the University of Maryland | en_US |
dc.contributor.publisher | University of Maryland (College Park, Md.) | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-02-04T07:49:46Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-02-04T07:49:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2005-12-08 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1395692 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1903/3238 | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.subject.pqcontrolled | Language, Linguistics | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | syntax | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Minimality | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Minimalism | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Turkish | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | relative clauses | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Case | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | the EPP and scrambling | en_US |
dc.title | Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses | en_US |
dc.type | Dissertation | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1