LINGUIST List 17.164
Wed Jan 18 2006
Diss: Syntax: Cagri: 'Minimality and Turkish Relativ...'
Editor for this issue: Meredith Valant
<meredithlinguistlist.org>
Directory
1. Ilhan
Cagri,
Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses
Message 1: Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses
Date: 17-Jan-2006
From: Ilhan Cagri <ilhanumd.edu>
Subject: Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses
Institution: University of Maryland
Program: Department of Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2005
Author: Ilhan Merih Cagri
Dissertation Title: Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses
Dissertation URL: http://www.freewebs.com/ilhan/Dissertation_Cagri.pdf
Linguistic Field(s):
Syntax
Dissertation Director:
Norbert Hornstein
Howard Lasnik
Paul M. Pietroski
Dissertation Abstract:
Turkish relative clauses display a subject/non-subject asymmetry. Thesubject relative (SR) is licensed for relativization from [Spec, TP].Whereas the non-subject relative (NSR) is never acceptable for subjectrelativization, the SR is licensed in clauses where there is no externalargument, and when relativizing a non-subject in clauses where the subjectis non-specific. Within the framework of the Minimalist Program, TurkishRCs are explained in terms of satisfaction of the EPP of T by a D featureand Minimality effects. As long as no nominal expression intervenes betweenthe relative head and [Spec, TP], the SR is licensed. The SR, then, can beused as a diagnostic for movement through TP. Minimality effects areincurred when there is an intervening nominal between T° and the RC head,and the SR becomes unacceptable. The proposal is that in Turkish, specificnominals, +human nominals, and Experiencers of psych verbs all contain a DPprojection. Non-specifics are NPs which cannot satisfy the EPP. NP subjectscannot move to [Spec, TP], and thus permit the SR form for relativizationof non-subjects. NPs create intervention effects, as does PRO, with theexception of subject control PRO which is perhaps a trace of movement.Scrambling ameliorates intervention effects. Once scrambled, expressionsare frozen but remain porous for movement of a subconstituent. Differencesbetween inherent and structural Case are suggested with structural caseassignment limited to DPs and in a Spec-Head configuration. Structurallycase-marked DPs are barred from moving to case-assigning positions unlessthere is a morphological match. Further proposals include structures forverb classes, including Psych verbs, and structures for infinitivals and+human DPs. Contrastive focus is briefly addressed. Though superficiallycomplex, relativization in Turkish can be accounted for with a minimum oftechnology. The suggestions here have implications for the theory of theEPP, Case, its assignment and interface conditions, feature satisfaction,and movement.
|