Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorHornstein, Norberten_US
dc.contributor.advisorPietroski, Paulen_US
dc.contributor.authorCagri, Ilhan Merihen_US
dc.contributor.departmentLinguisticsen_US
dc.contributor.publisherDigital Repository at the University of Marylanden_US
dc.contributor.publisherUniversity of Maryland (College Park, Md.)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-02-04T07:49:46Z
dc.date.available2006-02-04T07:49:46Z
dc.date.issued2005-12-08en_US
dc.description.abstractTurkish 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.extent1395692 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/3238
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledLanguage, Linguisticsen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledsyntaxen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledMinimalityen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledMinimalismen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledTurkishen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledrelative clausesen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledCaseen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledthe EPP and scramblingen_US
dc.titleMinimality and Turkish Relative Clausesen_US
dc.typeDissertationen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
umi-umd-3065.pdf
Size:
1.33 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

UMD Theses and Dissertations
Linguistics Theses and Dissertations