Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure

Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today...

Author: Balk?z Ozturk

109 downloads 1478 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Ian Roberts

Harvard University

Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque

Ken Safir

University of Venice

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

University of Lille, France

University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Salzburg

University of Groningen

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Volume 77 Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure by Balkız Öztürk

Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure

Balkız Öztürk Bog˘aziçi University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Balkız Öztürk Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure / Balkız Öztürk. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 77) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Case. 2. Case grammar. 3. Role and reference grammar. 4. Phraseology. 5. Functionalism (Linguistics) P253.098 2005 415/.018--dc22 isbn 90 272 2801 9 (Eur.) / 1 58811 645 X (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2005046013

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

xiii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1. Theoretical Background 2 1.1 Case and Visibility Condition 1.2 Referentiality 6 2. Overview of the Proposal 11 3. Outline of the Book 14

1 3

CHAPTER 2 Referentiality in Turkish 17 1. Problem 17 1.1 There are no morphological determiners in Turkish 18 1.2 Turkish is problematic for Nominal Mapping Parameter and the DPHypothesis 21 1.3 Case interacts with the referentiality of the noun 25 2. Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns and Complex Predicate Formation in Turkish 31 2.1 Pseudo-incorporation 32 2.1.1 Previous accounts of the data 32 2.1.2 Problems with the Head Incorporation Analysis 38 2.1.3 Massam (2001) 2.1.4 Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns as Pseudo-incorporated NPs 44 2.1.5 Syntactic Status of Pseudo-incorporated NPs 46 2.1.5.1 Pseudo-incorporation of Themes 46 2.1.5.2 Pseudo-incorporation of Agents 48 2.1.5.3 Summary 50 2.2 Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns as Complex Predicates 50 2.2.1 Idioms 53 2.2.2 Light verb constructions with et- “do” 55 2.3 Complex Predicate Formation in Syntax 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi

3. Case-checking and Type-shifting 4. Conclusion 63 5. Appendix: Indefinites and Case 64 5.1 Non-specific Indefinites 65 5.2 Specific Indefinites 77

59

CHAPTER 3 Case, Referentiality and Non-configurationality 1. Argument Structure in Turkish 95 1.1 The Neo-Davidsonian Model 95 1.2 Case-checking and Theta Role Assignment in Turkish 1.2.1 Transitive and Intransitive Construction in Turkish 1.2.2 Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns in Turkish 1.3 Summary 126 2. Functional Categories and Case-checking in Turkish 127 2.1 vP in Turkish 127 2.1.1 Burzio’s Generalization and Turkish 128 2.1.2 Alexiadou and Anagnastopoulou (2001) 130 2.1.3 vP Fronting 132 2.1.4 Legate (2003) 135 2.2 TP in Turkish 138 2.3 Double-object Constructions in Turkish 150 3. Summary 162 4. Non-configurationality 162 4.1 Turkish and Non-configurationality 166 4.1.1 Properties of Scrambling in Turkish 167 4.1.2 Why is scrambling possible in Turkish? 184 4.2 A Typology Based on Case and Referentiality 188 4.2.1 Hungarian 191 4.2.2 Japanese 194 4.2.3 Chinese 202 4.2.4 Summary 209 4.3 Null Arguments 210 4.4 An Overall Look at (Non-)configurationality 222 5. Conclusion 225 6. Appendix: Case-driven Agree and Language Acquisition

CHAPTER 4 Concluding Remarks References

244

93 100 101 107

226 241

Preface This book investigates the interaction between the two independent conditions on argumenthood, namely, case and referentiality and proposes that they are strongly correlated and have to be associated with each other in syntax as syntactic features. The variation languages exhibit in the association of these features in return explains the differences observed in their phrase structure in terms of (non-)configurationality. In the chapters to follow, my main goal was not only to flesh out the technical details of this theoretical account of case and referentiality, but also to provide the reader with carefully defined empirical generalizations and rich comparative data from typologically different languages, which, I hope, would open up new research venues and thus contribute to have a better understanding of the language faculty. This book is mainly a revision of my doctoral dissertation submitted to Harvard University in May 2004. The main proposal of this study was structured thanks to the graduate seminars I attended at the Linguistics Department of Harvard University and MIT, as well as thanks to the discussions I had with the distinguished faculty of both departments. Some portions of the material covered here were presented at the Light Verb Workshop at Harvard University (November 2002), LASSO 32 at University of Texas, Pan American (October 2003), CASTL at University of Tromsø (October 2003), MLS at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (October 2003), Penn Linguistics Colloquium 28 at University of Pennsylvania (February 2004), ECO5: Syntax Workshop at University of Maryland, College Park (March 2004), GURT 2004 at Georgetown University (March 2004), CLS 40 at University of Chicago (April 2004), ICTL 12 at Dokuz Eylül University (August 2004), WAFL 2 at Bo aziçi University (October 2004) and WECOL 2004 at University of Southern California (November 2004). I am grateful to the participants of these workshops and conferences for their invaluable comments and suggestions, which unerringly helped me to refine my analysis. I am indebted to my dissertation committee members, C.-T. James Huang, Shigeru Miyagawa and Cedric Boeckx for all the excellent support and guidance they have given me over the years. I am grateful to C.-T. James Huang not only for teaching me how to see beyond data and ask deeper questions, but also for his immeasurable contributions to the field of linguistics. I am indebted to Prof. Shigeru Miyagawa for sharing his generous time and expertise with me. I must acknowledge that many findings of this study are inspired by the excellent work he has contributed to the field of Japanese syntax. Words would fall short of expressing my gratitude to Cedric

viii

PREFACE

Boeckx for his invaluable contribution to my dissertation and to this book, as well as to my academic career. Thank you for being such an inspiring role model and for clearly illustrating me what it means to be a successful linguist, a brilliant teacher and an exceptional advisor. I also want to acknowledge the unwavering support of Jay Jasanoff both at the academic and personal levels all throughout my graduate study at Harvard. I would also like to thank Susumu Kuno for generously sharing his exceptional expertise and immense knowledge of the field with me. I also give my thanks to Engin Sezer, Veneeta Dayal, Norvin Richards, Hajime Hoji, Heidi Harley, Henrietta de Swart, Alan Munn and Lynn Nichols. I benefited immensely from the discussions I had with them. I also thank the graduate students - my friends and colleagues - at the linguistics programs at Harvard, MIT, USC, Bo aziçi University and University of Maryland for all their generous help at various stages of my dissertation and this book. I am grateful to my former professors and current colleagues at Bo aziçi University. I pay my deepest gratitude to Sumru Özsoy for her everlasting support and encouragement, since the day I chose to become a linguist. I am indebted to Eser Erguvanl -Taylan for inspiring me to start studying linguistics, when I was a freshman. I am grateful to Asl Göksel for teaching me how to ask questions. I also thank Sabahat Sansa-Tura for her deeply insightful comments for my work. I also give my thanks to all the members of the Department of Western Languages and Literatures at Bo aziçi University, in particular to Cevza Sevgen, for welcoming me into their program and for offering me a great academic environment to work on this book. I would like to express my gratitude to Elly van Gelderen for the encouragement she has given me to publish this work in the LA series since LASSO 2003. I am also indebted to Werner Abraham for his support to my work. I also thank Kees Vaes for his patience and assistance during the concrete production of this book. Finally, I would like to thank the members of my family. I especially thank my aunt, Prof. Türkan Kutluay Merdol for inspiring me to become a member of the Academia. But above all, I thank my parents, Ayten and Haluk Öztürk, and my brother, Mustafa Kemal, for their unconditional love and support throughout my life. This book is dedicated to them all.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This book presents a detailed investigation of the interaction between case and referentiality features through certain functional categories in syntax. It aims to show that case and referentiality as syntactic features are strongly correlated, however, languages exhibit a variation in terms of the means, i.e., the functional categories, they have associated with case and referentiality. This variation is the underlying reason for the differences that surface in their phrase structures. In the literature two conditions have been proposed for a predicative NP to become a syntactic argument: (i) assignment of referentiality by a functional category, e.g. by overt or covert Ds (Longobardi 1994, among others); and (ii) case assignment to make an NP become visible for theta role assignment by a functional category e.g. by T or v (Chomsky 1995, among others). Hence, to become an argument an NP should be checked both for case and for referentiality. These two conditions have been proposed independently in the literature. This raises two questions: (i) Why are there two independent requirements for predicative NPs to become arguments? (ii) Is there a correlation between these two conditions? If so, what is its nature and what implications does it have for phrase structure? It is a well-known fact that there are many languages without overt determiners where case morphology imposes certain interpretations for NPs, such as definiteness and specificity. One such language is Turkish as illustrated by example (1) below (cf. Enç 1991). These data imply a direct correlation between referentiality and case. (1)

a. Ali bir kitap okudu. Ali a book read “Ali read a book.” b. Ali bir kitabokudu. Ali a book-acc read “Ali read a certain book.”

(non-specific indefinite)

(indefinite specific)

2

CASE, REFERENTIALITY AND PHRASE STRUCTURE

Historically, it has also been claimed that the development of an article system in a language follows the deterioration of the case system (Osawa 1998, 2000). This also implies a correlation between referentiality and case. This book investigates the exact nature of this correlation between case and referentiality and presents an analysis of how such a correlation is mediated in syntax. The standard view is that cross-linguistically, case and referentiality are assigned by certain functional categories, e.g. vP and TP for case (Chomsky 1995), and DPs for referentiality (Szabolcsi 1983/84, Abney 1987, Ritter 1991, Stowell 1991, Cinque 1994, Longobardi 1994 among others). Languages, however, exhibit differences in terms of morphology associated with case and referentiality. It is possible to classify four types of languages based on the morphology associated with case and referentiality: i. Languages with both articles and case morphology, e.g. Hungarian ii. Languages with case morphology but without articles, e.g. Turkish iii. Languages with articles but without case morphology, e.g. English iv. Languages with neither case morphology nor articles, e.g. Chinese This study investigates the question of whether the difference in the morphology associated with case and referentiality among languages can argue for a difference in the inventory of functional categories. This is the point of view to be pursued here. We argue that functional categories responsible for case and referentiality assignment can vary from one language to another, unlike what is assumed by the standard view. The research is mainly conducted based on the evidence from Turkish, which is then compared and contrasted to data from English, Japanese, Hungarian and Chinese. Particular emphasis will be given to the variation in the inventory of functional categories associated with case and referentiality in these languages. The aim is to show that languages mediate the correlation between case and referentiality in different ways in their syntax. The way the correlation between case and referentiality is established in a given language has certain implications for the phrase structure of that language. Thus, we argue for a parametric variation based on how languages assign case and referentiality, and we claim that this variation is what underlies the differences observed in their phrase structures. 1. Theoretical background

In the following we will introduce some theoretical background for the two requirements proposed independently in the literature for an NP to become a syntactic argument: (i) case assignment for visibility, and (ii) referentiality assignment for type-shifting predicative NPs into arguments. We will start with

INTRODUCTION

3

case and visibility condition in Section 1.2.1, then introduce the syntactic and semantic background for referentiality assignment in Section 1.2.2. 1.1 Case and Visibility Condition One of the two requirements for predicative NPs to become arguments is case assignment. Chomsky (1980), following Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980), proposed that phonologically overt DPs should be case-assigned. This provided an explanation for why certain DPs undergo the transformation known as the DP-movement. Later Chomksy (1981) made the proposal that Case Theory is a module of UG and introduced the formal requirement Case Filter, which applies at S-structure: (2) Case Filter: *NP if NP has phonetic content and has no Case. (Chomsky 1981: 49) Case Theory accommodating the case filter has taken various shapes within the literature. Within Government and Binding Theory (GB), nominative is assigned by IP, whereas the lexical V head assigns accusative. During the early stages of Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993), an agreement-based case theory was proposed, where both nominative and accusative are assigned via a Spec-Head relation through the functional projections AGRsP and AGRoP. Such a case checking system assumes symmetry between the two types of structural case. Later in Chomsky (1995) it is assumed that the v head is responsible for accusative case checking, where as the nominative case is checked by TP. In Chomsky (2000, 2001), on the other hand, a process called Agree has been proposed for checking features such as case and agreement. Through Agree the need for displacement for feature checking has been eliminated, as Agree enables in situ checking of features. A Probe can check its uninterpretable features against a matching Goal, as long as the Goal is within the complement domain of the Probe: (3) a.

TP ei T’ ei T vP Agree

DP

4


b.

vP ei v’ ei v VP Agree

DP

In Chomsky (1986), it is proposed that the case filter follows from the more general requirement of visibility for interpretation at the levels of LF and PF. Under this view, the case filter is not an independent module of UG, but derives from the visibility condition. The visibility condition is related to theta theory, and states that DPs must be case-marked in order to become visible for theta marking. A predicate can only assign a theta role to DPs that are visible, and case is what renders DPs visible for theta role assignment. Overt DPs are canonically arguments, and must have theta roles; therefore they need case to become visible. The case filter, however, applies to any DP regardless of its argument status. Adjunct DPs as well as argument DPs have to be case-assigned: (4) a. *I sang the queen. b. I sang for the queen. As seen in (4), the adjunct DP the queen has to be case assigned by a preposition even if it is not an argument of the verb sing. This raises the question of whether the visibility condition can be reduced to the case filter, which does not discriminate between arguments and adjuncts, but solely requires that all phonologically overt DPs must be case-marked regardless of their argument/adjunct status. At this point we need to address the question of whether the visibility requirement mediated by the case filter can simply be reduced to the case filter, since case filter holds for all DPs regardless of argument/adjunct distinction. Or is there independent evidence for visibility outside of case considerations to argue that it is a condition that holds specifically for argument DPs? Baker (1996) provides evidence for the visibility condition based on polysynthetic languages. He proposes a Polysynthesis Parameter, given as follows:

INTRODUCTION

5

(5) A phrase X is visible for theta-role assignment from a head Y only if it is coindexed with a morpheme in the word containing Y via: (i) an agreement relationship, or (ii) a movement relationship (Baker 1996:17) He argues that in polysynthetic languages that exhibit extensive prodrop of arguments, agreement morphemes fulfill the visibility requirement for theta-assignment: (6) Anel-tu-fi-n kine kuchillo-mew. (Mapudungun) threaten-tr-3o-1ps one knife-instr “I threatened him with a knife.” (Baker 2003:2) In addition, he discusses incorporation as an instance of a movement relationship, which takes place in the absence of case assignment to ensure PF identification of arguments for visibility: (7) a. ni chao kintu-le-y ta chi my father seek-pres-ind/3s the “My father is looking for the cows.” b. ni chao kintu-waka-le-y. my father seek-cow-pres-ind/3s “My father is looking for the cows.”

pu pl

waka. cow

(Mapudungun) (Baker 2003:3)

Thus, Baker (1996) argues that incorporation and agreement observed in polysyntethic languages are there to ensure PF identification of arguments, that is, they satisfy the visibility condition at PF level independent of case, and hence enable theta role assignment.1 Lin (2001) has introduced an even stronger argument for the visibility condition being independent of the case filter. Chinese is a language that does not exhibit any evidence for syntactic case. Lin (2001) argues that: Chinese does not exhibit any Case-related effect --- there is no inflection, nor other similar grammatical phenomena, in this language. In view of this fact, the theory of Case-feature checking can hardly be empirically justified in Chinese. Furthermore, there is no evidence that XPs in Chinese undergo overt or covert movement to check some uninterpretable feature of a head H. Consequently, there doesn't seem to be any reason to

6


assume that, in Chinese, Case-feature checking plays a role in the core syntax (Lin 2001: 240).

Lin (2001) argues for a fully (Neo-)Davidsonian phrase structure for Chinese where the arguments of a verb are introduced by light verbs (See Chapter III for details). That is, NPs are merged into the Spec of relevant light verb projections, which introduce different theta roles. Lin (2001) shows that in a language like Chinese where case as a syntactic feature is not available, visibility is still a relevant notion for Syntax-PF interface. He proposes that in Chinese, in the absence of case the formal condition to ensure visibility is subjecthood. That is, an NP in Mandarin Chinese can have a phonetic realization only if it is the formal subject of a predicate, i.e. a light verb. Lin (2001) claims that all arguments in Mandarin Chinese must be introduced into a sentence as a subject, semantically via predication with a V', and syntactically via merger to the specifier position of an VP. NPs can become visible for theta role assignment only when they are introduced at the Spec position of a relevant theta role bearing functional projection. The availability of such a formal requirement at the Syntax-PF interface in a language like Chinese, where syntactic case does not exist, provides strong evidence for the visibility condition as an independent requirement, which is not dependent on case. In summary, there is sufficient evidence to argue that visibility is a formal requirement which holds at the Syntax-PF interface to establish the argumenthood of NPs in addition to the requirement of referentiality assignment. Case-assignment is one instance of the realization of the visibility condition, which holds in languages with syntactic case. In other words, in languages with syntactic case, case assignment for visibility is one of the requirements for NPs to become syntactic arguments. 1.2 Referentiality In addition to visibility, the second requirement for NPs to become syntactic arguments is the assignment of referentiality. In order to occur in argument positions in syntax, nouns must be of argument type. It is generally assumed that lexical categories like adjectives, verbs, and nouns denote predicates semantically (Heim and Kratzer 1998). Therefore, NPs are by default considered to be of the predicative type and need to be type-shifted to become arguments. Languages can achieve type shifting by means of either overt morphological determiners or by covert type shifters such as ∃ (existentials), ι

INTRODUCTION

7

(definites), and ∩ (kinds). English, for example, makes use of overt morphological determiners to type-shift predicative NPs of <e,t> into arguments of type e: (8) a. ∗I saw dog. b. I saw the dog. However, languages can also achieve type-shifting covertly, as in the case of Slavic languages: (9) V komnate byli mal iki i devo ka. Ja obratilsja k mal iku. In the room were a boy and a girl. I turned to the boy. (Chierchia 1998: 361) As (9) illustrates, NPs in Russian can be interpreted as definites or existentials depending on the context. This implies that Russian, lacking overt determiners, resorts to covert type-shifters. Determiners are considered to be the locus of referentiality in languages with overt morphological determiners. Based on evidence from languages with determiners, it has been proposed that NPs should be introduced into argument positions embedded under the functional projection Determiner Phrase (DP). The D head in DPs is responsible for establishing the referentiality value of the embedded NP and type-shifts it into an argument. This is known as the Determiner Phrase Hypothesis (Longobardi 1994): (10)

DP ei D’ ei D NP [referentiality]

On semantic grounds the NP/DP distinction in noun phrases is assumed to correspond to the predicate/argument distinction. Motivations for such a view rely on semantic analyses, which standardly treat bare nouns as type <e,t> namely, the type for predicates, and treat the determiner as a type-shifter which yields an entity of type e, namely, the type for arguments. Mapping semantic structure onto syntactic structure, Stowell (1991) and Longobardi (1994) argue for the presence of a functional D head in nominal phrases. They claim that NPs are predicative unless an argumental D head introduces them. Hence NPs functioning as arguments should be repre-


8

sented as DPs. In other words, a nominal expression is an argument only if it is introduced by a category D. Thus, [DP [D’ NP]] is assumed to be the crosslinguistic nominal structure. The status of DP as a universal category has become one of the ongoing debates in the literature, as there are many languages which lack overt morphological evidence for the existence of a DP. Yet semantically, all languages are capable of expressing referentiality, regardless of the presence or absence of morphological determiners specified for referentiality. The fact that in languages without determiners bare nouns can freely occur in argument positions challenges the view that arguments should always be presented as DPs. Arguing against the universality of DP as a functional projection, Chierchia (1998) claims that languages may vary in what they let their NPs denote. He argues that NPs are not of universally predicate type. He proposes the Nominal Mapping Parameter, based on the binary features of [+/-arg] and [+/-pred], which constrain the way the syntactic category NP is mapped into its interpretation. The Nominal Mapping Parameter argues that in languages like Chinese, NPs are marked as [+arg, -pred] denoting names of kinds; i.e. they are inherently of type e. They can occur in argument positions without resort to determiners. In languages like Romance, NPs are [-arg, +pred], that is, they are of type <e,t>, hence they cannot occur as arguments unless they are embedded under a D projection. In the third category are languages like Germanic and Slavic, in which NPs are of type [+arg, +pred]. This feature combination enables them to behave like Romance in certain aspects and like Chinese in certain others.2 Chierchia’s typology of NP denotations is based on binary features [/+argument] and [-/+ predicate]: (11) Romance Chinese English Slavic

Predicate + _ + +

Argument _ + + +

A. In [+arg, -pred] languages: i. bare nouns can occur in argument positions; ii. the extension of all nouns is mass and nouns refer to kinds (type e);3 iii. there is no plural marking as pluralization cannot apply to masses; iv. there is a generalized classifier system.

INTRODUCTION

9

One canonical example of this type of language is Chinese: (12) a. yi li mi one cl rice “one grain of rice” b. liang li mi two cl rice “two grains of rice” (13) a. yi zhang zhuozi one cl table “one piece of table” b. liang zhang zhuozi two cl table “two pieces of table” (14) wo kanjian xiong le. I see bear asp “I saw some/the bear.” (Chierchia 1998: 354) As seen in (12) and (13) above, there is no plural marking on the noun, even in the case of a numeral denoting plurality, and a rich classifier system is necessary to individuate mass nouns. And as seen in (14), bare nouns can occur in argument positions. B. In a [-arg, +pred] language: i. bare nouns cannot occur in argument positions, as every noun is a predicate; ii. bare nouns have to be introduced into argument positions by determiners; iii. there is count/mass distinction. Hence plural morphology will be available for count nouns. Romance languages are considered to be the example of this type: (15)

a. *Enfants sont venus chez nous. “Kids have come by us.” b. * J’ai mangé biscuits dans mon lait. “I ate cookies with my milk.” (Chierchia 1998: 355)

Example (15) illustrates the case where bare arguments are not allowed in argument positions in French unless they are introduced with a determiner.


10 (16)

a. *Bambini sono venuti da noi. “Kids came by us.” b. Ho preso biscotti con il mio latte. “I had cookies with my milk.” (Chierchia 1998:355)

Example (15) on the other hand, represents the counterpart of (16) in Italian where argumental bare nouns in subject position are ungrammatical but acceptable in object position. Considering that both in (16a) and (16b) bare nouns are introduced with a phonologically null determiner, it is expected that bare nouns can occur as objects so that the empty determiner can be lexically governed. Note that this distributional restriction provides evidence for the presence of a null functional category, namely the D head, as claimed by Longobardi (1994). C. In [+arg, +pred] languages: i. there is mass/count distinction (+arg nouns yield mass nouns, whereas +pred nouns yield count nouns) ii. mass nouns can occur as bare arguments whereas singular count nouns require either type-shifters or overt determiners. iii. Forming kinds via type-shifters from predicates is only possible for plurals, such that they can occur in argument positions. English is a canonical example of this type of languages, one which uses overt deteminers: (17) a. I drank water. b. *I ate apple. Chierchia (1998) also classifies Russian and most other Slavic languages, which lack determiners along with English type languages. Consider the Russian data below: (18) a. Ja kupil khleb (*khliby). “I bought bread (breads).” b. Ja kupil 3 *(batona) khleba. “I bought 3 loafs of bread.” (19) V komnate byli malcik i devocka. Ja obratisja k malciky. “In the room were a boy and a girl. I turned to the boy.” (Chierchia 1998: 361)

INTRODUCTION

11

As (18) illustrates Russian has mass/count distinction similar to the one in English. Example (19) shows that Russian bare count nouns can denote definite or indefinite entities depending on the context. This implies that Russian, lacking overt determiners, resorts to covert type-shifters for count nouns occurring in argument positions, thus this is similar to the case in English. Hence, although Russian and English are both [+arg, +pred] languages, English makes use of overt morphology, i.e. determiners, in the case of type-shifting, whereas Russian achieves type-shifting covertly. Chierchia (1998) argues that the difference between English and Russian follows from the fundamental principle that ‘Don’t do covertly what you can do overtly.’ Therefore in English there are overt morphological determiners, which are specified for certain NP interpretations and there is no need to resort to covert type-shifters. However, in Russian there is no overt morphology, i.e. determiners, to block the application of covert type-shifters. Therefore covert means of referentiality are preferred in Russian. 2. Overview of the Proposal As discussed above, for an NP to become an argument it needs to be assigned both case and referentiality. These two conditions on argumenthood have been proposed independently in the literature. Based on the evidence from languages with determiners it is assumed that different functional projections are responsible for case and referentiality assignment. The main argument of this study is that the two conditions on argumenthood, i.e. case and referentiality assignment, are indeed closely correlated, and the features case and referentiality need to be associated with each other in syntax. Taking Turkish as our starting point we will argue that the association of case with referentiality in syntax can vary from language to language based on the checking domain of case and referentiality features, as well as the functional projections bearing these features available in syntax. We will show that Turkish is a language which lacks the functional projection DP as the locus of referentiality feature in functional syntax, but whose case system exhibits a direct interaction with the referentiality value of NPs. The fact that case interacts with referentiality in Turkish suggests a direct correlation between the two independent conditions on argumenthood. Let us briefly illustrate how languages can exhibit variation in establishing an association between case and referentiality in their syntax. In languages like English there are separate functional projections associated with case and referentiality. NPs are merged into their theta positions already referentiality assigned by DPs. Case-checking, on the other hand, is achieved

12


via other functional projections such as TP and vP, which are higher than the theta positions of NPs. As every NP has to be marked both for case and referentiality to become an argument, these two features have to be associated with each other. Hence, DPs bearing the referentiality feature should undergo an Agree relationship with a higher functional head that bears the case feature. In English, as seen in (20), the domain of referentiality and case features are distinct XP projections. Unless Agree is established between the case and referentiality features, NPs cannot acquire argument status in English. This implies that although case and referentiality features are associated with separate functional projections, they are still closely related: (20) English: YP ei Y’ ei Y XP [+case] ei DP [+ref] X’ Agree

X

In languages like Turkish, on the other hand, in the absence of morphological determiners, the functional projection DP has not been developed as an independent category for referentiality assignment. However, as case and referentiality are closely related for the establishment of argumenthood, the functional projections assigning case in Turkish also bear referentiality feature. Hence in Turkish case and referentiality features are even more closely associated than in English and are encoded on the same functional heads, as shown in (21). Such a configuration of case and referentiality assignment annuls any motivation to establish an Agree relationship with higher functional projections in such languages, as both features are assigned within the domain of a single functional projection, as seen in (21): (21) Turkish: XP ei X’ X [+case, +referentiality]

INTRODUCTION

13

Languages like Hungarian also disassociate case and referentiality through the presence of a separate functional category, i.e. DP for referentiality assignment, similar to the case in English. However, they differ from English in the extent of this disassociation. Although case and referentiality are assigned by separate functional projections in Hungarian, it will be claimed that they are still assigned within the domain of a single functional projection, as in Turkish, as seen in (22). Thus, this also does not leave any motivation for Agree in languages like Hungarian: (22) Hungarian: XP ei DP [+ref] X’ X [+case] This variation among languages based on the domain of case and referentiality features and the functional heads associated with them has certain implications for phrase structure. The strict hierarchy between the case-assigning functional heads (TP>vP) in languages like English has to be observed in establishing argumenthood. This yields a strictly configurational phrase structure. In languages like Turkish and Hungarian, on the other hand, assignment of case and referentiality takes place within the domain of a single projection, since there is no Agree relation with higher functional projections. Thus, case assignment is in situ and NPs do not leave their base position, unlike in English. That is, they are in their theta positions. It will be proposed that the lack of Agree with hierarchically ordered case-assigning functional projections is the main reason behind the non-configurational nature of languages like Turkish and Hungarian. Such an analysis of Turkish and Hungarian, which disassociates case from TP and vP, also raises questions for the true functions of the categories TP and vP in Turkish and Hungarian. We will argue that in these languages there is no syntactic motivation for vP, and thus their phrase structure lacks the vP node. The only relevant functional category in Turkish and Hungarian is TP, which plays a role in the morphological realization of case à la Miyagawa (1991). Note that this line of thought is parallel to the original proposal made by Hale (1980, 1983) that non-configurational languages lack the VP node.

14


Thus, we argue that vP is parametrically defined and that its presence plays a crucial role in defining configurationality. If this account of case and referentiality is on the right track, it will also have certain implications for language acquisition. A child would first need to set the right parameter for establishing argumenthood, based on the functional projections available for case and referentiality assignment and the domain of case and referentiality assignment. Then other parametric differences observed in terms of (non)-configurational phrase structure will follow. 3. Outline of the Book This study is organized as follows. In Chapter II we will present arguments for the lack of DP as a functional projection in Turkish and establish the view that case acts as a type-shifter encoding referentiality in the absence of DPs. The argumentation will be based on the syntactic and semantic status of bare nouns in Turkish found in pseudo-incorporation cases, idioms, and light verb constructions. It will be claimed that preverbal bare nouns in these constructions cannot be case-assigned, and therefore they retain their predicate status. Being predicates, they cannot function as arguments, but form complex predicates along with the verb head. In Chapter III we will also focus on what functional categories are available in Turkish that are associated with case and referentiality features. We will propose that there is no vP in Turkish and TP is not the provider of structural case either. This implies that Turkish is a case-in situ language, which lacks case-driven Agree with higher functional projections. In connection to this proposal, we will compare Turkish with English, Hungarian, Japanese and Chinese and introduce a typology of languages based on the functional categories associated with case and referentiality. We will focus on Turkish, English, Japanese, Hungarian, and Chinese, and present an account of the variations observed in the degree of non-configurationality exhibited in the phrase structures of these languages. Scrambling, null arguments, availability of pseudo-incorporation will be the main issues which will be dealt with under non-configurationality. Particular emphasis will be given to the presence or absence of case-driven Agree in a given language, which in turn will help us introduce a new definition of non-configurationality. Finally, Chapter IV will introduce a summary of the general findings of this study and recapitulate the major conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

15

Notes 1

Note that it is possible to argue that incorporation and agreement also follow from the case requirement and as such they do not provide a strong argument for the visibility condition independent of case filter. 2

Longobardi (2001b) argues against such a proposal. He claims that strategies of interpretation of nominals, whether proper or common nouns, are basically one and the same, though differently parametrized in different languages. This argues against the comparative semantics approach proposed by Chiechia (1998). 3

Chierchia (1998) argues that cross-linguistically bare noun arguments unambiguously refer to kinds. Considering that a kind is identified in any given world or situation with the totality of its instances, he draws a parallelism between pluralities and kind terms. He defines pluralization as a function that applies to sets of atoms (or characteristic functions thereof) and turns them into the corresponding sets of pluralities. For example: (i) dogs = {f, b}

{f, b, s} {f, s} { b, s}

PL dog=

[f b s]

f=Fido b=Barky s=Spotty If Fido, Barky and Spotty are all the dogs in the world, the singular noun dog will be true of them. The plural noun dogs will be true of Fido and Barky, Fido and Spotty, and any other possible groups. Application of the definite determiner the, interpreted as the iota operator ι, then will give: a. ι X = the largest member of X, if there is one, b. the dogs = ι DOGS = the largest plurality of dogs, when applied to a set of pluralities, c. the dog = ι DOG = the dog (if there is one), when applied to a set of singularities. Mass nouns, on the other hand, come out of the lexicon already pluralized. A mass noun such as furniture will be true in an undifferentiated manner of singular pieces of furniture as well as of pluralities, that is, mass nouns are the neutralization of the singular/plural distinction: (ii) Furniture=

{a, b}

{a, b, c} {a, c} {b, c} a b c

Since mass nouns come from the lexicon already pluralized, it is not possible to pluralize them or to directly count them. Mass nouns do not correspond to sets of atoms; therefore to provide a suitable counting domain, classifiers are needed to map mass nouns into sets of atoms. Application of the definite article to mass nouns yields a similar case as with pluralities. The furniture denotes the largest plurality of pieces of furniture.

16


Chierchia (1998) argues that kinds are regularities that occur in nature. What counts as a kind is not set by grammar but by shared knowledge of speakers. To any natural property like the property of being a dog, there corresponds a kind. Kinds can be considered as the nominalization of a property, and properties as the predicativization of kinds. A kind is identified in a given world with the totality of its instances. The dog-kind in our world is identified with the totality of dogs, the scattered entity that comprises all dogs, or the fusion of all dogs around. Hence in a sense kinds are individual concepts: functions from worlds into pluralities, the sum of all instances of kind. Not all individual concepts are going to be kinds, only the ones that identify classes of objects. The property of being an instance of a kind does not differentiate between singular and plural instances. Hence the property corresponding to a kind comes out as being mass.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENTIALITY IN TURKISH

In Chapter I, we introduced the two requirements for argumenthood: (i) case assignment for visibility, and (ii) referentiality assignment for type-shifting. In this chapter we will focus on how referentiality is established for NPs in Turkish - a language without overt determiners. We will show that Turkish is a language without any evidence for an independent functional category specified solely for referentiality assignment, such as a DP, yet case directly interacts with the referentiality interpretation of NPs. We will argue that in languages like Turkish, in the absence of determiners, case assignment fulfills the function of determiners in other languages. That is, functional categories assigning case also assign referentiality, which makes case-assignment on a par with type-shifting, deriving arguments from predicative NPs. This will set the stage for the main proposal of this work that case and referentiality are closely related features in syntax, and languages vary in terms of functional categories associated with case and referentiality. This variation will form the basis of the typology, which we will introduce in Chapter III and explain the differences observed in the phrase structure of languages such as English, Japanese, Hungarian and Chinese as well as Turkish in terms of how case and referentiality are checked in syntax. 1. Problem Turkish is an Oghuz language, which belongs to the Turkic family. It is a language with rich case morphology but without morphological determiners. Turkish introduces a challenge for the standard accounts of referentiality assignment, namely the DP hypothesis and the Nominal Mapping Parameter. It does not exhibit any morpho-syntactic evidence to motivate an abstract DP, and it fails to fit the classification assumed by Nominal Mapping Parameter as well. In the following we will sketch out in detail the problems Turkish poses for the standard theories of referentiality and discuss the implications of the exceptional status of Turkish for the two requirements on argumenthood.

18


1.1 There are no morphological determiners in Turkish Turkish is a language which lacks morphological determiners of the type found in many Romance and Germanic languages and also lacks classifiers of the type found in Chinese. Firstly, it is a fact that Turkish lacks articles that correspond to the definite article ‘the’ in English. In (1) bare nouns occur in argument positions and express definiteness in the absence of overt determiners: (1) a. Ali kitabokudu. Ali book-acc read “Ali read the book.” b. Çocuk okul-a gitti. child school-dat went “The child went to (the) school.” It has been proposed that in languages like Japanese, which also lack determiners, demonstratives can be considered to be determiners, which act as true functional heads. Fukui (1995) argues that only functional heads have the property of closing a projection, that is, nothing can precede them. He shows that English demonstratives pattern with other functional heads, such as articles, as they also have the property of closing projections as in (2)-(3). However, Japanese demonstratives do not have the property of closing projections. Therefore, they cannot act as functional heads; that is, they are not determiners, but prenominal modifiers as shown in (4): (2) a. the book b. *John’s the book (3) a. this book b. *John’s this book (4) a. ko-no hon “this book” b. John-no ko-no hon “John’s this book” Demonstratives in Turkish also clearly pattern with Japanese demonstratives; that is, they do not close projections:

REFERENTIALITY IN TURKISH

19

(5) a.

bu kitap “this book” b. John-un bu kitabJohn-gen this book-3ps “John’s this book” c. John-un k rm bu kitabJohn-gen red this book-3ps “John’s red this book” d. rm bu kitap red this book “this red book” e. bu k rm kitap this red book “this red book”

As seen in (5d) and (5e) in Turkish demonstratives can occur in any order with respect to other modifiers, that is, they behave like prenominal modifiers rather than functional categories that close projections. This eliminates the option of considering demonstratives as definite articles in Turkish. In short, Turkish does not provide any evidence for the existence of an overt definite article that can function as a determiner. With respect to indefinites, on the other hand, the numeral bir ‘one’ is traditionally assumed to be an indefinite article in Turkish (Lewis 1967, Underhill 1976, Gencan 1979, Kornfilt 1997, Banguo lu 1990, among others). Now let us consider its status as a determiner. (6) a. Ali bir kitap okudu. Ali one book read “Ali read a book.” b. Bir çocuk ko tu. one child ran “A child ran.” Firstly, Crisma (1997) and Longobardi (2001a) state that there are no languages which lack a definite article but have an indefinite one. Yet it is very common for languages to lack the indefinite article but to have the definite, such as the case in Irish, Hebrew and Arabic.1 Given that Turkish does not have a definite article, assuming that Turkish has an indefinite article would make Turkish highly exceptional in terms of language typology. Secondly, in terms

20


of Fukui (1995), bir also does not exhibit the property of a functional head, as it cannot close projections:2 (7) a. rm bir kitap red one book “a/one red book” b. bir k rm kitap one red book “a/one red book” Furthermore in terms of distribution bir also patterns with other numerals in Turkish: (8) a. k rm bir kitap red one book “a/one red book” b. bir k rm kitap one red book a/one red book c. rm iki kitap red two book “two red books” d. iki k rm kitap two red book “two red books” Another argument for the lack of morphological determiners in Turkish comes from the fact that Turkish is strictly a head final language. Consider: (9) a. VPà NP V

Ali [VP kitabokudu] Ali book-acc read “Ali read the book” b. NPà AdjP N güzel kitap good book “the good book” c. PPà NP P Ali için Ali for “for Ali”


21

Both demonstratives and the numeral bir “one”, which were discussed above as possible candidates for determiners, strictly precede nouns in Turkish: (10) a. bu kitap this book b. *kitap bu book this (11) a. bir kitap one/a book b.*kitap bir book one/a Considering demonstratives and the numeral bir, which both strictly precede nouns, to be functional heads will create an exception for the phrase structure of Turkish, as Turkish is otherwise strictly head final. Therefore, we conclude that Turkish lacks morphological determiners.3 1.2 Turkish is problematic for the Nominal Mapping Parameter and the DPhypothesis As shown above, Turkish is a language without morphological determiners. However in Turkish, bare nouns can occur in argument positions. This raises the question of what bare NPs in Turkish denote semantically. If they are of predicate type, this will imply the need for a type-shifting mechanism. As introduced in Chapter I, this type-shifting can be mediated either by abstract DPs à la Longobardi (1994), or by covert type-shifters, as in the case of Russian as claimed by Chierchia (1998). To be able to answer this question we will first focus on how Turkish behaves with respect to Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter. In Turkish plurality is marked morphologically: (12) a. Çocuk gel-di. child come-past “The child came.” b. Çocuk-lar gel-di. child-pl come-past “The children came.”

22


Unlike the other language types discussed under the Nominal Mapping Parameter, both mass nouns and individual nouns can be quantified without any use of classifiers functioning as individualizers: (13) a. Ali iki kitap al-d . Ali two book buy-past “Ali bought two books.” b. Ali iki su al-d . Ali two water buy-past “Ali bought two (bottles) of water.” Hence, Turkish is a language in which: a. bare nouns can occur in argument positions, b. overt plural morphology is available, c. no articles or classifiers are available. With these properties Turkish does not seem to directly match any of the three language categories discussed under the Nominal Mapping Parameter above. Lacking classifiers and having a plural suffix, it does not fall into the [+argument, -predicate] category. One might consider it to be of the [+predicate, +argument] type, where case-marked bare nouns occur in argument position freely and depending on the context can be interpreted either as kinds, definites or existentials, being type-shifted freely by covert operators (∃: existentials, ι: definites and ∩: kinds) as in Russian. However, this is not the case in Turkish. Case-marked bare nouns are necessarily interpreted either as kinds or as definites, but not as existentials: (14) a. Ali çocu -u gördü. Ali child-acc saw “Ali saw the/*a child.” b. Ali dondurma-y seviyor. Ali ice-cream-acc loves “Ali loves (the) ice-cream.” Note that putting a case-marked NP in a position within the VP domain, which is generally assumed to be under the scope of existential closure (Diesing 1992), also fails to provide an existential interpretation for the casemarked NPs:


23

(15) a. Ali kitabh zl h zl oku-du. Ali book-acc quickly read-past “Ali read the/(*a) book quickly.” b. Ali h zl h zl kitaboku-du. Ali quickly book-acc read-past “Ali read the/(*a) book quickly.” This implies that unlike in the case of Russian covert type-shifters cannot freely apply to any bare noun in Turkish, which shows that Turkish is not a language of the Russian type, that is, [+predicative, +argument], either.4 The third option is to consider the [+predicative, -argument] type for Turkish. This implies that all arguments should be introduced by overt or covert determiners, as in the case of Romance languages. However, as discussed above, there are no morphological determiners in Turkish. This will lead to the claim that Turkish should have an abstract DP projection which converts predicative NPs into arguments. Now let us consider whether there is any strong motivation to argue for an abstract D head in Turkish.5 Longobardi (1994) presents convincing evidence for N-to-D movement in Italian, which supports the claim that Italian has a D projection to host the movement of the N head: (16) a. il mio Gianni the my Gianni b. Giannii mio ti Gianni my c. DP ei D’ ei D NP Gianni ei mio N’ ei N t Turkish, however, does not exhibit any overt evidence for such a movement, which would provide concrete evidence for the presence of an empty D head in Turkish. Since Turkish is strictly a head final language, to test


24

the presence or absence of such a movement is not possible, since it would not cause any change in word order: (17)

DP ei D’ ei NP D ei N’ ei N

The only instance of movement observed at the NP level in Turkish is possessor postposing: (18) a. benim annem my mother b. annem benim mother my However, given the structure in (17) it will not be possible to argue that this word order variation is due N-to-D raising. Since Turkish is head-final, there is no head position to the right of the possessor benim “my” which the noun head can move into. The only way to account for this word order variation would be to argue for rightward adjunction of the possessor, which will not necessarily argue for the presence of a D head.6 Another argument given by Longobardi (1994) to motivate an abstract D head in Italian was the distributional restrictions exhibited by bare nouns. Bare nouns in Italian are restricted to lexically governed positions, due to the presence of an empty D head. If it is assumed that there are empty determiners in Turkish, then bare nouns should also exhibit distributional restrictions. However, this is not the case in Turkish, since bare nouns are totally acceptable in any syntactic position in Turkish, and are interpreted as arguments.7,8 In brief there is no morphosyntactic motivation to argue for an abstract DP projection in Turkish. This in return implies that Turkish does not seem to match the [+predicate, -argument] type languages under Chierchia (1998) either. Hence, with these properties Turkish exhibits an interesting challenge for the standard accounts of referentiality. Given that there is no classifier


25

system and there are no overt or covert determiners, the question is what provides the referentiality feature to NPs in Turkish. Since referentiality is a cross-linguistic requirement for NPs to establish their argumenthood, it has to be available for nouns in Turkish as well. Note that Turkish cannot be considered to be a language of type [+argument, -predicate], where NPs are inherently of argument type. It strictly lacks the classifier system and has a plural morpheme. As classifiers and plural morphemes are in complementary distribution, presence of plural morpheme implies that Turkish bare nouns are not of type [+argument, -predicate]. This implies that in Turkish there have to be predicative NPs which require type-shifting in order to occur in argument positions. As the discussion above shows unlike the case of Russian, no covert type-shifter can be applied to bare nouns in Turkish. Under Chierchia’s framework, this implies that there must be overt functional categories which block the application of covert type-shifters. The following section will investigate the question of whether there is an overt functional category responsible for type-shifting of bare nouns into arguments in Turkish. 1.3 Case interacts with the referentiality of the noun As discussed above, Turkish presents a challenge to standard accounts of referentiality. There is no morphosyntactic evidence for the presence of an abstract DP projection along with the lines of what the DP hypothesis claims. Also, at the semantic level, Turkish bare NPs cannot be associated with any type-shifter, unlike in other determinerless languages, and this argues for the presence of covert type-shifter. It is known that in many languages which lack morphological determiners, case morphology interacts with the referentiality interpretation of nouns: (19)

a. wælstowe gewald command battlefield-f-gen “command of the battlefield” b. Oddan bearn Odda-gen-sg son-nom-pl “The sons of Odda” c. be suðan Temese by south Thames “the south of the Thames”

(Old English: Osawa 1998)


26 (20)

a. Ostin leipää. buy-1ps bread-partitive “I buy bread.” b. Ostin leivän. buy-1ps bread-acc “I buy the bread.”

(Finnish:van Geenhoven 1998)

(21)

a. Jaaku arna-mik tuqut-si-v-u-q. Jacob-abs woman-inst kill-ap-ind-intr-3ps “Jacob killed a woman.” b. Jaaku-p arnaq tuqut-p-a-a. Jacob-erg woman-abs kill-ind-tr-3ps-3ps “Jacob killed the/ a particular woman.” (West Greenlandic Eskimo:van Geenhoven 1998)

(22)

a. Adnaan-ne rotii paka-yii. Adnan-mas-erg bread-fem-nom cook-perf-fem-sg Adnaan made (a/the) bread. b. Adnaan-ne rotii-ko paka-yaa. Adnan-mas-erg bread-fem-acc cook-perf-mas-sg “Adnaan made a particular/the bread.” (Urdu: van Geenhoven 1998)

(23)

a. Hari pustaka huduk-utt-idd-aane. Hari book look.for-ppl-prog-3ps “Hari is looking for a/a particular book.” b. Hari pustaaka-vannu huduk-utt-idd-aane. Hari book-acc look.for-ppl-prog-3ps “Hari is looking for a particular book.” (Kannada: Lidz 1999)

Turkish has also been recognized in the literature as a language where overt case morphology has a direct impact on the referentiality interpretation of nouns (Sezer 1972, 1991, Tura-Sansa 1973, Nilsson 1985, 1986, Enç 1991, Kornfilt 1984, 1988, 1995, 1999, Taylan & Zimmer 1994 Aygen 1999, 2002b, Kelepir 2001, Ketrez 2003, among others). The fact that in a determinerless language like Turkish, case exhibits a highly systematic interaction with referentiality immediately raises the question of whether case can function as the counterpart of determiners in other languages.


27

In Turkish, accusative case in objects denotes definiteness, as seen in the contrast between (24a) and (24b). Only in the case of accusative morphology a noun can be referentially used, that is, it can introduce a discourse referent which can act as an antecedent for a pronoun (Ghomeshi 1999), as illustrated in (25a) and (25b): (24) a. Ali kitap okudu. Ali book read “Ali did book reading.” b. Ali kitabokudu. Ali book-acc read “Ali read the book.” (25) a. *Ali kitap okudu. Reng-i k rm -yd . Ali book read color-3ps red-past “Ali did book reading. It was red.” b. Ali kitabokudu. Reng-i k rm -yd . Ali book-acc read color-3ps red-past “Ali read the book. It was red.”

(non-referential)

(referential)

In the case of indefiniteness, which is expressed by means of the numeral bir “one”, again the presence or absence of accusative case creates a difference in terms of the interpretation of the noun. Presence of accusative case yields specific indefinites (Enç 1991): (26) a. Ali bir kitap okudu. Ali a book read “Ali read a book.” b. Ali bir kitabokudu. Ali a book-acc read “Ali read a certain book.”

(non-specific indefinite)

(indefinite specific)

Oblique cases also force strictly referential interpretation (Aygen 1999, 2002b, Kornfilt 2003). As seen in (27a) the ablative case forces a definite reading, which is referential. Only in the case of a generic operator introduced in the presence of the aorist as in (27b) it is possible for oblique case marked nouns to be interpreted as generics, which are also considered to be referential (Carlson 1977).

28


(27) a. Ali köpek-ten kork-tu. Ali dog-abl afraid-past “Ali got afraid of the dog.” b. Ali köpek-ten kork-ar. Ali dog-abl afraid-aorist “Ali is afraid of dogs.” The genitive case exhibits a similar pattern and interacts with referentiality as widely recognized in the literature (Sezer 1972, Hankamer and Knecht 1976, Knecht 1979, Nilsson 1986, Kornfilt 1999, 2003, Aygen 2002a, among others). As seen in (28), presence of genitive case causes a referential (definite) interpretation for the possessor. Its absence creates a non-referential reading and forms a compound: (28) a. Kalem-in kutu-su pencil-gen box-3ps “the box of the pencil” b. Kalem kutu-su pencil box-3ps “pencil box” Presence of the genitive is obligatory in the case of strictly referential possessors like pronouns or proper names: (29) a. Ben-∗(im) kalem-im I-gen pencil-1ps “My pencil” b. Ali-∗(nin) kalem-i Ali-gen pencil-3ps “Ali’s pencil” Tane constructions in Turkish also provide further evidence for the interaction between case and referentiality. There are two ways for a noun to co-occur with a numeral in Turkish: either with a bare numeral, or with a numeral followed by the so-called classifier tane (Schroeder 1992): (30) a. iki kalem two pencil “two pencils”


29

b. iki tane kalem two cl. pencil “two pencils” Note that Turkish is not a language with a classifier system like Chinese, Korean or Japanese. Öztürk (2002b) shows that the classifier tane in Turkish, unlike Chinese, Korean, and Japanese classifiers, does not individuate but makes it possible to refer solely to the number or the quantity. It refers to the number of occurrences of the kind that the noun denotes. Hence, it just denotes quantity/number, and does not refer to any individual in the world: (31) Keki üç tane ö renci yedi: *John, Tom ve Bill cake-acc three cl student ate John, Tom and Bill “Three students ate the cake: *John, Tom and Bill” As seen in (31) above, the form with the classifier tane only refers to the number of the students who ate the cake. It is not possible to list the names of the individuals forming the group of people that the number denotes. However, as (32) shows, the form without the classifier, on the other hand, enables one to list the names of the individuals that form the group. Therefore, it can be said that it has some referential power, unlike the form with the classifier. (32) Üç ö renci keki yedi: John, Tom ve Bill three student cake-acc ate John, Tom and Bill “Three students ate the cake: John, Tom and Bill” Demonstratives, which always precede definite NPs in Turkish, can also occur only with the form without the classifier, but not with the one with a classifier. This also suggests that the form without the classifier can refer to some definite group of individuals, whereas the other form cannot, since it simply denotes a quantity/number: (33)

a. Bu üç ö renci geldi. these three student came “These three students came.” b. *Bu üç tane ö renci geldi. these three cl student came


30 (34)

ö renci de geldi. a. Üç Three student de came “Every one of those three students came.” b. * Üç tane ö renci de geldi. three cl. student de came

Another piece of evidence for the referential power of the numerals without classifiers comes from the marker dA, which functions to individuate members of a group in Turkish.9 Numerals without the classifier can freely occur with this marker. However, this particle is not allowed in the case of NPs with classifiers, as they do not denote specific individuals, but only quantity/number. This also supports the view that NPs with classifiers do not have referential power, as seen in (34) above. Hence, tane as a classifier blocks reference to individuals forming a set, but makes it possible to refer to the number of members forming a set collectively. (35) a. Ali üç tane kitap okudu. Ali three cl book read “Ali read three books.” b. Ali üç (*tane) kitabokudu. Ali three cl book read “Ali read three books.” Example (35) shows that tane also interacts with case, which is associated with referential individuals. In (35a) tane is acceptable in the object position without the accusative. However in the case of (35b) the form with tane is not acceptable, when accusative morpheme is available. This is because accusative strictly denotes individuals, which is not compatible with the reading provided by tane constructions, as shown by the examples above. The discussion above highlights the fact that in Turkish case interacts with the referentiality interpretation of nouns. Note that there is no morphosyntactic evidence for a DP in Turkish, yet it is not possible for NPs to be associated with any covert type-shifters freely either. This implies that there must be an overt functional element blocking the application of covert typeshifters in Turkish. This raises the question of whether case can be the morphological type-shifter in a determinerless language like Turkish. In other words, can case-assignment also be responsible for referentiality assignment in a language without determiners? In this study we pursue the idea that case is


31

the type-shifter in Turkish.10 Given the two conditions on argumenthood, i.e. case and referentiality assignment, such a line of thought is not totally unacceptable. In the following, we will argue for the type-shifter nature of case by focusing on the syntactic and semantic differences between case-marked and non-casemarked bare nouns in Turkish. The aim is to show that the interpretational differences between the two forms follow from the way they are case- and referentiality-assigned. To highlight the contrast between case-marked and non-case-marked bare nouns we will focus on three types of bare noun constructions in Turkish: a) pseudo-incorporation, b) idioms with preverbal bare nouns, and c) light verb constructions with the verb et- “do.” It will be claimed that immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish do not function as syntactic arguments but are predicative NPs which form complex predicates along with the verb head. This follows from the argument that they are merged into syntactic positions where case-assignment is not available, and therefore cannot be type-shifted into arguments. Case-marked nouns, on the other hand, being in a position where case is available, are type-shifted into arguments via case-assignment. This will establish the claim that in Turkish, in the absence of determiners, case-assignment fulfills the two requirements for argumenthood. 2. Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns and Complex Predicate Formation in Turkish Turkish exhibits three types of structures where a bare non-case-marked noun immediately precedes a verb head; these are illustrated in (36) below: (36) a. Ali kitap oku-du. Ali book read-past “Ali did book-reading.” b. Ali surat as-t . Ali face hang-past “Ali got upset.” c. Ali dua et-ti. Ali prayer do-past “Ali prayed.”

(pseudo incorporation)

(idiom)

(light verb construction)

Example (36a) illustrates a case of pseudo-incorporation. (36b) and (36c) present examples of idioms and light verb constructions respectively. In all the examples given in (36) a bare non-case-marked noun immediately precedes the verb. In the following we will introduce a unified account of the

32


three constructions in (36) and propose that these are instances of complex predicates of the form [NP+V], which are formed by a lexical verb and a noncase-marked predicative NP. 2.1 Pseudo-Incorporation Turkish has been frequently cited in the literature as a language that exhibits head-incorporation of nouns à la Baker (1988) (Mithun 1984, Knecht 1986, Nilsson 1985, 1986, Sezer 1991, Kornfilt 1995, 2003, Schroeder 1999, Aydemir 2004 among others). The data given in (37a) and (38a) below is taken to be typical examples of head incorporation in Turkish, where an immediately preverbal bare noun is interpreted as forming a unit with a verbal head. Example (37a) illustrates theme incorporation in a transitive construction, whereas (38a) is an example of theme incorporation with an unaccusative verb. The examples in (37b) and (38b) illustrate the non-incorporated counterparts of (37a) and (38a) respectively: (37) a. Ali kitap okudu. Ali book read “Ali did book reading.” b. Ali kitabokudu. Ali book-acc read “Ali read the book.”

(theme incorporation – transitive verb)

(38) a. Köy-e doktor geldi. (theme incorporation – unaccusative) village-dat doctor came “Doctors came to the village.” b. Doktor köy-e geldi. doctor village-dat came “The doctor came to the village.” In the following, we will first briefly introduce the previous accounts of the data given in (37a) and (38a) which claim that this is a case of head incorporation à la Baker (1988). Then, we will propose a new account of the data paralleling the pseudo incorporation analysis of Massam (2001). 2.1.1 Previous accounts of the data. Baker (1988) proposes a syntactic account of incorporation, where the head of a complement NP is incorporated into the V head in syntax and forms a new V0. Baker (1988) very convincingly shows that such a configuration is only allowed for NPs which can be base-generated


33

in the complement position, since traces of incorporated N heads are subject to ECP and must be properly governed. Such government is only possible for a complement NP, as shown in (39a), whereas traces of subjects cannot be properly governed. This is the main reason why incorporation is not allowed from a subject position. (39) a.

S ru NP VP ru V0 NP ru V0 ti Ni0

b.

S ru NP VP ru ti V0 NP ru V0 Ni0

Head incorporation is allowed for the objects in transitive constructions and in unaccusatives, as shown in (40a) and (40b) respectively. However, it is strictly banned for subjects of transitives and unergatives, as seen in (41a) and (41b): (40) a. Yao-wir-a?a ye-nuhs-nuhwe?-s. pre-baby-suf 3fs/3n-house-like-asp “The baby house-likes.” (Mohawk: Baker 1988:82) b. Ka-hsahe?t-ahi-hw-i. 3N-bean-spill-caus-asp “The beans spilt.” (Onondaga: Baker 1988:87) (41) a.*Ye-wir-nuhwe?-s ne ka-nuhs-a?. 3fs/3n-baby-like pre-house-suf “Baby-likes the house.” (Mohawk: Baker 1988:82) b. *∅-kwien-teurawe-we a-dog-run-pres “The dog is running.” (Southern Tiwa: Baker 1988:89) Based on the data given in examples (37a) and (38a) above, Turkish has been analyzed as a language which exhibits head-incorporation, where a noun head-incorporates into a verb head, forming a new V0, as shown in (42) below (Mithun 1984, Knecht 1986, Nilsson 1985, 1986, Sezer 1991, Kornfilt 1995, 2003, Schroeder 1999, Aydemir 2004).


34

V0

(42) N0

V0

Mithun (1984) considers noun incorporation “a solidly morphological device that derives lexical items” (Mithun 1984: 847). She describes noun incorporation in Turkish as the morphological combination of a noun stem and a verb stem to form a derived intransitive predicate. The incorporated nouns have no syntactic status of their own, so they bear no case markers. They do not refer to specific entities but rather qualify their host V’s; so they are also unmarked for definiteness or number. Their non-referential character usually results in their being used for habitual activities, and they do not establish discourse referents. Nilsson (1985, 1986), Sezer (1991), Taylan & Zimmer (1994), Schroeder (1999) and Aydemir (2004), in parallel to Mithun (1984), also claim that noun incorporation has to take place in the lexicon, as it is closely related to idiom formation in Turkish, which is assumed to take place in the lexicon: (43) a. Ali Ay e-ye kitap verdi. (theme incorporation) Ali Ay e-dat book gave “Ali did book giving to Ay e.” b. Ali Ay e-ye kulak verdi. (idiom) Ali Ay e-dat ear gave “Ali listened to Ay e attentively.” Knecht (1986), on the other hand, argues for syntactic compounding for immediately preverbal bare nouns, assuming that a bare noun head forms a new verb along with the verb head. Her evidence for the claim that the noun and the verb form a new predicate comes from the following facts. First, in Turkish, immediately preverbal position is the focus position, and focused constituents can displace non-focused constituents, as seen in (44a) and (44b), whereas immediately preverbal bare nouns cannot be displaced by focused constituents, as in (44c) and (44d): (44) a. Fato dün kitabokudu. Fato yesterday book-acc read “Fato read the book yesterday.”


35

kitabFato okudu. b. Dün yesterday book-acc Fato read. “It was Fato who read the book yesterday.” c. Fato dün kitap okudu. Fato yesterday book read “Fato did book reading yesterday.” d. *Dün kitap Fato okudu. yesterday book Fato read Second, bare nouns cannot be topicalized, as in (45d), whereas casemarked nouns can be topicalized, as in (45b): (45) a. Bebek-ten et-i ald -m. Bebek-abl meat-acc bought-1ps “I bought the meat from Bebek.” b. Et-i Bebek-ten ald -m. meat-acc Bebek-abl bought-1ps “The meat, I bought it from Bebek.” c. Bebek-ten et ald -m. Bebek-abl meat bought-1ps “I bought meat from Bebek.” d. *Et Bebek-te ald -m. meat Bebek-loc bought-1ps Third, adverbs can intervene between a case-marked noun and a verb, as in (46b), whereas this is not possible when the noun is bare, as in (46d): (46)

a. Ali kitabh zl h zl okudu. Ali book-acc quickly read “Ali read the book quickly.” b. Ali h zl h zl kitabokudu. Ali quickly book-acc read “Ali read the book quickly.” c. Ali kitap *h zl h zl okudu. Ali book quickly read d. Ali h zl h zl kitap okudu. Ali quickly book read “Ali did book reading quickly.”

36


Fourth, bare nouns cannot be postposed to the right of the verb, as seen in (47a). However, it is possible for case-marked nouns, as in (47b): (47) a. *Ali okudu kitap. Ali read book b. Ali okudu kitab- . Ali read book-acc “Ali read the book.” Fifth, non-derived modifiers, which normally occur immediately preverbally (Taylan 1984), as seen in the contrast between (48a) and (48b), have to precede the bare noun. This implies that the verb and the noun form a unit and therefore, explains the difference in grammaticality between (48c) and (48d): (48) a. Ali kitab- h zl okudu. Ali book-acc quickly read “Ali quickly read the book.” b. *Ali h zl kitabokudu. Ali quickly book-acc read c. Ali h zl kitap okudu. Ali quickly book read “Ali did book reading quickly.” d. *Ali kitap h zl okudu. Ali book quickly read Finally, in Turkish, sentence stress can be assigned to the verb when all the other constituents of the sentence are presupposed in discourse (Taylan 1984), as seen in (49). However, in the case of bare nouns sentence stress can only fall on the bare noun, not on the verb. Knecht (1986) argues that this is an evidence for the compounding of the bare noun and the verb, as seen in (50), since the stress pattern is the same as the one found in regular noun compounds, shown in (51):11 (49) A: Köpek kedi-yi r-d , de il mi? dog cat-acc bite-past, not Q “The dog bit the cat, didn’t it?”


B: Is r-ma-d . Köpek kedi-yi yala-d . Bite-not-past dog cat-acc lick-past “It didn’t bite. The dog licked the cat.”

37

(Knecht 1986:90)

(50) A: Ali oda-s n-da mektup yaz- yor, de il mi? Ali room-3ps-loc letter write-prog, not Q Ali is writing letters in his room, isn’t he? B: Hay r, yaz-m -yor. Mektup oku-yor/*Mektup oku-yor. no write-neg-prog letter read-prog letter read-prog “No, he is not writing (letters). He is reading letters.” (Knecht 1986:91) (51) a. portakal reçeli orange marmalade b. *portakal reçeli c. Ali kitap okudu. Ali book read “Ali did book reading.” d. *Ali kitap okudu. Ali book read Kornfilt (1995, 2003), on the other hand, proposes a syntactic incorporation analysis for the data given in (37a)-(38a). However, unlike Knecht (1986), she claims that these nouns are marked for case and are embedded under a KP. Note that she also assumes that Turkish has a DP projection. In the case of incorporated NPs, she assumes the K head to be empty. Therefore, the N head moves into the empty K head position then moves and incorporates into V head, as shown in (52). This forces the bare noun to be in a lexically governed position as the sister of V. She claims that “incorporation in Turkish does not involve any change in grammatical relations for the remainder of the NP.” Her account follows Baker (1988) and assumes that bare nouns start out as full KPs, rather than as noun heads.

38


(52) a. Before incorporation VP 6 V’ 6 KP V 6 K’ 6 DP K 6 D’ e 6 NP D N’ N

e

b. After incorporation VP 6 V’ 6 KP V+NI 6 K’ 6 DP K 6 D’ ti 6 NP D N’

ti

N ti

In summary, all former accounts of immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish argue for a head-to-head-incorporation analysis where the noun head-incorporates into the verb head to form a morphologically complex verb head. 2.1.2 Problems with the Head-incorporation Analysis. There are three major problems with the head-incorporation analyses proposed for the data in (37a) and (38a). First, the head status of immediately preverbal bare nouns is controversial. Second, incorporation in Turkish does not truly intransitivize the predicate, as is the case in many other head-incorporation languages. Finally, incorporation in Turkish is not just confined to nouns that can be basegenerated as complements of verb heads; but it is also possible for agents in transitives and unergatives to undergo incorporation. In the following, we will discuss each problem in detail. Taylan (1986) presents one piece of evidence against headincorporation in Turkish. She particularly focuses on the head status of incorporated NPs. She states that focus particles like dA, bile, and mI can intervene between the verb and the bare noun. This implies that the verb and


39

the noun do not form a morphologically complex predicate which acts as a single morphological unit V0: (53) a. Ali kitap da okudu. Ali book also read. “Ali also did book reading (in addition to magazine reading).” b. Ali kitap m okudu? Ali book Q read “Ali did book reading?!” c. Ali kitap bile okudu. Ali book even read. “Ali did even book reading.” In addition to Taylan’s argument, we will also provide further evidence against the head status of the incorporated noun in Turkish. The first piece of evidence comes from verb ellipsis cases. It is possible to elide the verb under identity in the case of immediately preverbal bare nouns, which suggests that the verb and the bare noun are independent syntactic constituents: (54) Ali kitap okudu, dergi de il. Ali book read magazine not “Ali did book reading, not magazine (reading).” A second piece of evidence is provided by coordination facts. Conjunction of either verb with another verb (55b) or of the bare noun with another bare noun (55a) is possible, which again suggests that the bare noun and the verb do not form a new syntactic head. (55) a. Ali kitap ve dergi okudu. Ali book and magazine read “Ali did book reading and magazine reading.” b. Ali kitap ald ve satt . Ali book bought and sold “Ali did book buying and selling.” Further evidence is provided for the non-head (phrasal) status of the incorporated noun by modification possibilities. It is possible to modify the incorporated noun by an adjective as in (56a) and by participles as in (56b) and (56c):


40 (56)

a. Ali ek i elma yedi. Ali sour apple ate “Ali did sour apple eating.” b. Ali konu -acak insan arad . Ali speak-participle person looked.for “Ali looked for someone to talk to.” c. Ali oku-yacak kitap ald . Ali read-participle book bought “Ali bought books to read.”

The evidence given in (53)-(56) clearly indicates that immediately preverbal bare nouns are not head categories, but independent syntactic constituents. Therefore, we conclude that bare nouns in these constructions are clearly phrasal categories of the type NP.12 The second problem with the head-incorporation analysis is that incorporation in Turkish does not pattern with head-incorporation cases observed in other languages in terms of intransitivity of verbs under headincorporation. In many languages it is observed that head-incorporation detransitivizes the predicate: (57) a.

Angunguu-p aalisagaq neri-v-a-a. A.-erg fish-abs eat-ind-[+tr]-3sg.3sg “Angunguaq ate the/a fish.” b. Angunguaq tikip-p-u-q. A.-abs arrive-ind-[-tr]-3sg “Angunguaq arrived.” c. Angunguaq aalisaga-tur-p-u-q. A.-abs fish-eat-ind-[-tr]-3sg “Angunguaq did fish-eating.” (West Greenlandic: van Geenhoven 1998:13)

In transitive construction in West Greenlandic, the subject receives ergative case, whereas the object gets absolutive case, as seen in example (57a). In intransitive verbs on the other hand, the subject is marked for absolutive case, as in (57b). The head-incorporation cases illustrated in (57c) pattern with intransitive verbs, that is, the subject receives absolutive case, when the object undergoes incorporation. This implies that head-incorporation detransitivizes predicates.


41

Taylan (1986) shows that detransitivization of this type is not observed in the case of incorporation in Turkish. Causative constructions illustrate this:13 (58) a. Ali ko -tu. Ali run-past “A li ran. ” b. Ay e Ali-yi ko -tur-du. Ay e Ali-acc run-cause-past “Ay e made Ali run.” (59) a. Ali bal tuttu. Ali fish-acc caught “Ali caught the fish.” b. Ay e Ali-ye bal tut-tur-du. Ay e Ali-dat fish-acc catch-cause-past “Ay e made Ali catch the fish.” As seen in (58), when an intransitive verb in Turkish is causativized the causee receives accusative case. However, if causativization applies to transitives, then the causee is assigned dative case, as seen in (59), since accusative is already assigned to the object.14 However, when a theme incorporation case as in (60a) is causativized in Turkish, the causee has to be dative-assigned, as in (60b). Assigning accusative to the causee leads to ungrammaticality, as seen in (60c). Although there is no overt accusative-marked object, the bare noun is considered to be associated with accusative case, forcing the causee to be marked in dative case. This implies that under causativization, theme incorporation cases are treated as transitive constructions. That is, incorporation does not lead to detransitivization. More specifically, as in (60b), the incorporated construction still behaves like a three-place predicate with the agent in dative case. Incorporation does not turn the three-place predicate into a two-place predicate, allowing Ali to be marked with accusative case. This provides evidence against the head-incorporation analyses, where the noun head and the verb head merge to form a detransitivized head that is treated as a new X0 item in syntax.15 (60) a. Ali bal k tuttu. Ali fish catch “Ali went fishing.”

42


b. Ay e Ali-ye bal k tut-tur-du. Ay e Ali-dat fish catch-cause-past “Ay e made Ali go fishing.” c. *Ay e Ali-yi bal k tut-tur-du. Ay e Ali-acc fish catch-cause-past The most challenging piece of data against head incorporation analyses is provided by the fact that agents can be incorporated in Turkish: (61) a. Ali-yi ar soktu. Ali-acc bee stung “Ali got bee stung.” b. Ar Ali-yi soktu. bee Ali-acc stung “The bee stung Ali.”

(agent incorporation-transitive)

(62) a.

aç-ta ku ötüyor. (agent incorporation-unergative) tree-loc bird singing “There is bird singing in the tree.” b. Ku a aç-ta ötüyor. bird tree-loc singing “The bird is singing in the tree.”

As seen in (61a), it is possible to incorporate the agent of a transitive verb. Example (62a) illustrates that agent incorporation is also possible with unergatives. Examples (61b) and (62b) illustrate the non-incorporated counterparts of (61a) and (62a) respectively. This fact implies that Turkish does not fit the widely accepted cross-linguistic account of Baker (1988) discussed above. That is, cross-linguistically, syntactic incorporation is not allowed for agents, as they cannot be base-generated as immediate sisters of the verb, where their traces can be properly governed.16 However, as seen in (61) and (62) above in Turkish agents of transitive verbs and unergatives behave similar to themes under incorporation, which is strictly distinguished in the incorporation cases discussed by Baker (1988). This fact creates a problem for the assumption that there is incorporation in Turkish. To summarize, the discussion above suggests that it is not possible to argue for a head incorporation analysis for Turkish. The bare noun and the verb do not form a morphologically complex V0 via head-incorporation in the form of [N0+V0]. As suggested by focus particle insertion, verb ellipsis, co-


43

ordination, and modification possibilities, bare nouns are not syntactic heads but XP categories.17 Furthermore, bare nouns are still visible to syntactic processes like causativization. This implies that incorporation in Turkish does not detransitivize predicates, unlike other cross-linguistic cases of head incorporation. Finally, agents can incorporate in Turkish, which is strictly banned in a standard head incorporation account. Therefore, we argue that the headincorporation analysis is not compatible with Turkish and a new account of the data should be provided. This will be the path we will take in the following sections. 2.1.3 Massam (2001). Massam (2001) proposes a new account of the Niuean data given in (63) below, which has often been analyzed as a case of head incorporation (Seiter 1980): (63)

Takafaga ika tumau ni a ia. hunt fish always emph erg he abs “He is always fishing.”

(Massam 2001: 157)

Massam (2001) shows that the nominal element in constructions like in (63) above is a phrase (NP) rather than a noun head and argues that this is not a case of head incorporation. She calls these structures Pseudo-incorporation. She argues that the phrasal elements in these constructions are NPs rather than DPs and are base-generated as the complement of the verb head. As these NPs fail to check the object case, they cannot move out of VP, and thus they undergo predicate-fronting along with the verb. This yields the (pseudo-)incorporated word order VOS, rather than the normal Niuean VSO word order: (64)

Pseudo incorporation: IP

q VPx ei V NP

p I’ ei I AbsP ei DP(abs) Abs’ ei K(abs) tVPx

44


Massam (2001) mainly discusses examples with objects. However, she also provides one instance of pseudo incorporation which involves external arguments: (65) ko e liga ne kamata nonofo tagata a Niue. pred abs likely Nfut begin settle people abs Niue “… the likelihood that people begin to settle in Niue [fifteen hundred years ago]…” (Massam 2001:172) Massam (2001) states that the verb nonofo “settle” usually takes an agent as its single argument: (66) Kua nonofo a lautolu ki lalo. perf sit/stay/dwell abs they to down “They sat down.”

(Massam 2001: 172)

Massam (2001) also discusses whether the pseudo-incorporated nominals are referential or not. She follows the definition of referentiality provided by Givón (1978), Rappaport (1987) and Akmajian (1970). A referential nominal is one which has a nonempty reference, i.e. which exists in a particular universe of discourse (though not necessarily in the real world). A non-referential nominal, on the other hand, does not introduce a potential discourse referent, but is instead used as a label, referring to type, not token. Ghomeshi (1999) introduces modifying nouns as a type of non-referential nominals. Canonical modifying nouns are the ones in compounds in English, e.g. truck-driver, which fail to establish discourse referents, as shown in (67). (67) *I went to berry-picking to jam with.

(Massam 2001:169)

Massam (2001) argues that pseudo-incorporated nouns in Niuean are also of the modifying type. They fail to establish external discourse referentiality. She concludes that psuedo-incorporated nouns are non-referential and that they ensure an unbounded or non-delimited reading of the event (Tenny 1994), providing a habitual or frequentative interpretation. 2.1.4 Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns as Pseudo-Incorporated NPs. As shown in Section 2.1.2 a Bakerian head incorporation analysis is not compatible with the Turkish data, as immediately preverbal bare nouns are not head categories but are phrasal.


(68) a. *Ali kitap okudu. Reng-i k rm -yd . Ali book read color-3ps red-past “Ali did book reading. It was red.” b. Ali kitabokudu. Reng-i k rm -yd . Ali book-acc read color-3ps red-past “Ali read the book. It was red.”

45 (non-referential)

(referential)

As seen in (68a), it is not possible to co-refer to bare nouns with a pronominal element in Turkish. That is, they do not set discourse referents. In parallel to the definition given by Massam (2001), these nouns are clearly nonreferential. Furthermore, bare nouns in Turkish also lack number interpretation, that is, they do not denote singularity or plurality. In the literature, referentiality is associated with the DP projection within nominal structures. But we have already eliminated the functional projection DP from the inventory of functional categories in Turkish in Section 1. Therefore, it is not possible to argue that immediately preverbal categories are DPs, contrary to Kornfilt (1995, 2003). As for the number interpretation within nominals, it is generally assumed that this information is introduced at the Number Phrase (NumP) level (Ritter 1991, Borer 2004, among others). However, it is not possible to argue for a NumP for immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish either, since they fully lack any number interpretation. Thus, the only option for bare nouns is to consider them to be phrasal nominal categories, that is, as NPs. Establishing the NP status of immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish draws a parallel between the pseudo incorporation structure in Niuean and Turkish incorporation cases. We propose the following structure for immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish. We argue that bare NPs are merged as immediate sisters of the lexical verb: (69)

V’ ei NP V

The structure in (69) is quite parallel to the Niuean pseudo incorporation, where the verb and the NP form a constituent. Therefore, we conclude that Turkish cases should not be analyzed as instances of head incorporation but as pseudo-incorporation structures à la Massam (2001). Such a structure retains the independent NP status of immediately preverbal bare nouns.

46


However, there is one problem with considering the Turkish data to be a case of pseudo-incorporation. Massam (2001) proposes the pseudoincorporation analysis only for internal arguments.18 But as shown in Section 2.1.2 Turkish exhibits agent incorporation very productively. The structure in (69) implies that both external arguments and internal arguments are merged as complements of the verb. This is a serious problem, given that it is very wellestablished in the theory that agents are introduced higher in the structure (Marantz 1984, Kratzer 1994). We will come back to that issue in Section 2.1.5.2. 2.1.5 Syntactic Status of Pseudo-incorporated NPs. Adopting the pseudo incorporation analysis of Massam (2001), we argue that immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish are independent phrasal categories, i.e., NPs. In the following, we will focus on the syntactic status of pseudo-incorporated NPs. The question we will be answering is whether these NPs are syntactic arguments or not. We will first discuss the syntactic status of pseudo-incorporated themes, and then will focus on pseudo incorporation of agents. 2.1.5.1 Pseudo-incorporation of Themes. One instance of pseudo incorporation involves themes as illustrated in the sections above: (70) Ali oda-da [NPkitap] okudu. Ali room-loc book read “Ali did book reading in the room.” We have already established that the NP kitap in (71) is an independent syntactic constituent. Now we will investigate the question whether this NP is a syntactic argument or not. Before we focus on the NP in (71), let us first take a look at how internal arguments bearing the theme role behave syntactically in Turkish: (71) Ali kitaboda-da oku-du. Ali book-acc room-loc read-past “Ali read the book in the room.” The noun kitab- , which is overtly marked for accusative in (71), is an internal argument of the verb and bears the theme role. As an independent syntactic argument it is visible to other syntactic processes which strictly target internal arguments. One such process in Turkish is syntactic passivization:


47

(72) Kitap oda-da oku-n-du. book room-loc read-pass-past “The book was read in the room.” As seen in (72), when the transitive construction (71) is passivized, the object is promoted to subject position and is marked for nominative. Now let us see how (70) behaves under passivization: (73) Oda-da kitap oku-n-du. room-loc book read-pass-past “Book-reading was done in the room.” As shown in (73), passivization of (70) yields a different structure than (72). This structure is what is known in Turkish as impersonal passive (cf. Aissen 1974, Özkaragöz 1980, 1986, Biktimir 1986, Knecht 1986, Göksel 1990, 1993, Kornfilt 1997 among others).19 Impersonal passives are formed with unergative verbs, i.e. verbs without internal arguments:20 (74) a. nsanlar ko tu. people ran “People ran.” b. Ko -ul-du. run-pass-past “Running was done.” As seen above, passivization of (70) above causes an impersonal passive reading but not a personal passive interpretation. This suggests that under passivization the sentence in (70) is not considered to be a transitive construction but an unergative one. Therefore, passivization does not see the bare NP in (70) as the syntactic object, namely, the internal argument, but considers it as part of the unergative predicate. The discussion above implies that bare themes in pseudo incorporation constructions do not occur in the syntactic object position, which is an argument position.21 Hence, this challenges the argument status of pseudoincorporated themes. Therefore, we conclude that pseudo-incorporated themes in (70) are not syntactic arguments but they should be analyzed as part of the predicate, which in return is interpreted as an unergative construction.


48

2.1.5.2 Pseudo-incorporation of Agents. As discussed in Section 2.1.2 Turkish very productively allows pseudo incorporation of agents as well: (75)

Ali-yi [NP ar ] soktu. Ali-acc bee stung “Ali got bee stung.”

As seen in (75), the object Ali, bearing the theme role, is clearly marked with accusative case, whereas the agent ar is immediately preverbal.22 One can argue that presence of accusative implies a truly transitive construction, with a subject and an object. If this is a true transitive construction we would expect that passivization can also be applied, targeting the syntactic object: (76) *Ali sok-ul-du. Ali sting-pass-past “Ali was bee stung.” However, as seen in (76), it is not possible to passivize the sentence in (75). Now let us take a look at the referential counterpart of (75), given in (77): (77) a. Ar Ali-yi soktu. Bee Ali-acc stung “The bee stung Ali.” b. Ali (bu) ar taraf ndan sok-ul-du. Ali (this) bee by sting-pass-past “Ali was stung by (this) the bee.” (As a possible answer for: Ali hangi ar taraf ndan sokuldu?) Ali which bee by stung “By which bee did Ali get stung?” The counterpart of (75) with a definite subject does allow passivization as seen in (77) above, where the verb has two syntactic arguments, namely the object and the subject. This raises a question as to the syntactic status of pseudo-incorporated agents. If they are true subjects, then the structure should be considered as transitive, given the accusative object. However, as passivization facts clearly show, this is not possible. The sentence cannot be considered to be transitive.


49

There is another construction in Turkish, which behaves similarly under passivization, namely the unaccusative, i.e. structures formed with predicates that lack external arguments: (78) a. Çocuk büyü-dü. child grow-past “The child grew up.” b. * büyü-n-dü. grow-pass-past Unaccusatives do not allow passivization either. The fact that agent incorporation cases pattern with unaccusatives under passivization implies that agents in pseudo incorporation constructions are not in syntactic subject positions. That is, they are not external arguments. Therefore, passivization treats cases of agent incorporation on a par with unaccusatives, which also lack external arguments. There is further evidence for the non-subject status of agents in pseudoincorporation cases provided by control structures:23 (79) a. Polisi Ali-yi [PROi sorgula-mak için] tutukla-d . police Ali-acc interrogate-to for arrest-past “The police arrested Ali to interrogate him.” b. *Ali-yi [PROi sorgula-mak için] polisi tutukla-d . Ali-acc interrogate-to for police arrest-past “Police-arresting happened to Ali to interrogate him.” As seen in (79a), the referential subject polis in the canonical subject position can control into purpose clauses binding the big PRO. However, in the case of (79b), which exhibits agent incorporation, it is not possible to control into the purpose clause.24 This implies that in pseudo-incorporation cases, agents are not in canonical subject position. Furthermore, with pseudo incorporation of agents it is not possible to use adverbs which are oriented towards agentive external arguments. Consider the contrast between (80a) with a referential subject and (80b) with an incorporated agent: (80) a. Polis Ali-yi kas tl olarak tutukla-d . police Ali-acc intentionally arrest-past “The police arrested Ali intentionally.”

50


b. *Ali-yi kas tl olarak polis tutukla-d . Ali-acc intentionally police arrest-past “Police-arresting happened to Ali intentionally.” This clearly implies that the word polis in (80b) is not the external argument, unlike in (80a). The examples discussed above suggest that agents in pseudo incorporation cases do not function as external arguments, that is, they are not syntactic subjects. 25 2.1.5.3 Summary. To summarize, pseudo-incorporated bare nouns in Turkish do not function as syntactic arguments, even though they have full NP status. Pseudo incorporation of themes yields a structure on a par with unergatives, where no internal argument is available. Agent pseudo incorporation, on the other hand, patterns with unaccusatives, where no external argument is present. In other words, pseudo-incorporation of themes and agents both yield intransitive structures. However, as discussed in Section 2.1.2, under causativization, pseudo-incorporation cases behave as if they are transitive constructions, and we have argued that this is one of the differences between Bakerian type head-incorporation and the Turkish phenomenon in question (see examples (58)-(60)). We will return to this problem in Chapter III, and present a solution which follows from the interaction between case and referentiality features in syntax with respect to establishing argumenthood. 2.2 Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns as Complex Predicates In Section 2.1 we have shown that the structure in Turkish which has been analyzed as a case of head incorporation is in fact an instance of pseudo incorporation, where a bare NP and a lexical verb form a complex predicate. We have also discussed that bare NPs in pseudo incorporation do not function as syntactic arguments. If immediately preverbal bare nouns are not syntactic arguments, then what is their syntactic status? One possibility is to consider them as adjuncts. (81) a. *Ali kitap güzel oku-r. Ali book well read-aorist “Ali does book reading well.” b. Ali güzel kitap oku-r. Ali well book read-aorist “Ali does book reading well.”


51

c. *Ali araba iyi sür-er. Ali car well drive-aorist “Ali does car driving well.” d. Ali iyi araba sür-er. Ali well car drive-aorist “Ali does car driving well.” If immediately preverbal bare nouns were adjuncts, it would be possible for other adjuncts such as VP adverbs to occur in between the bare noun and the verb. However, as seen in (81a) and (81c) this is not acceptable. Ordinary adjuncts can be modified by relative clauses in Turkish, as shown in (82). Pseudo-incorporated NPs, on the other hand, do not allow relative clause formation, which is normally acceptable for other adjunct NPs, as seen in (82):26 (82) a. Ali çocu -a kitaboda-da verdi. Ali child-dat book-acc room-loc gave “Ali gave the book to the child in the room.” b. Ali-nin kitabçocu -a ver-di -i oda Ali-gen book-acc child-dat give-rel-3ps room “The room where Ali gave the child the book.” (83) Ali kitap okudu à Relativization of the bare noun book Ali book read is not possible. “Ali did book reading.” Considering that immediately preverbal bare nouns behave quite differently from other adjuncts, as shown above, we will give up the possibility that they are syntactic adjuncts. Taylan (1984) discusses the characteristics of non-derived modifiers in Turkish, which are morphologically ambiguous between adjectives and adverbs. Those modifiers have to occur immediately preverbally. As VP adverbs, they cannot precede objects, as seen in (84a). If they occur preceding the object, as in (84b), they are interpreted as adjectives modifying the object, as they are morphologically identical to adjectives:27 (84) a. Ali kitab- h zl okudu. Ali book-acc quickly read “Ali read a book quickly.”


52

kitabokudu. b. ?Ali h zl Ali quickly book-acc read i) “*Ali read the book quickly.” ii) “#Ali read the quick book.” However, these adverbs are totally acceptable preceding pseudoincorporated nouns, as seen in (85). That is, unlike in the case with objects that are case assigned illustrated in (85), non-derived modifiers can be interpreted as modifying the verb, as VP adverbs. (85) a. Ali güzel kitap okudu. Ali good book read i) “Ali did book reading well.” ii) “Ali did good book reading.” b. Ali h zl kitap okudu. Ali quickly book read i) “Ali did book reading quickly.” ii) “Ali did quick book reading.” Non-derived modifiers always have to occur immediately preverbally and cannot precede any argument. However, they are totally acceptable preceding immediately preverbal bare nouns, and there retain their adverbial interpretation. This presents further evidence for the non-argument status of pseudo-incorporated NPs. That is, just as in the case of passivization, syntax does not consider them to be syntactic objects. Therefore, non-derived adverbs can precede them as VP adverbs. If pseudo-incorporated nouns are not argument NPs, and non-derived adverbs that normally occur immediately preverbally can precede them, then this suggests that pseudo-incorporated NPs should be analyzed as part of the verbal complex. That is, similar to the incorporation analyses, they need to be analyzed as forming a complex predicate along with the verb. This takes us back to the structure we have introduced in (69) above, which is repeated as (86) below: (86)

V’ ei NP V

In (86) the NP and the V head form a constituent. We will argue that they form a complex predicate together. Pseudo-incorporated [NP+V]


53

complexes behave as if they are intransitive constructions under passivization or under modification by non-derived adverbs. We argue that such a complex predicate formation follows from the predicative nature of the complement NP. Semantic accounts of (pseudo-)incorporation assume that (pseudo-)incorporated nouns are of predicate type (van Geenhoven 1998, Farkas & de Swart 2003, Chung & Ladusaw 2004).28 We argue that both being predicative categories the complement NP and the lexical verb form a complex predicate at the V-bar level. Lacking functional categories, this level is a purely predicative level. Thus complex predicate formation is allowed at this point in the derivation in the absence of any functional projections. Note that if pseudo incorporation is considered to be a case of complex predicate formation which does not involve syntactic arguments but predicative NPs, then there is no need to assume that it should exclude external arguments, namely agents. Since the NPs of concern in pseudo incorporation are not syntactic arguments, the constraint proposed by Baker is irrelevant. However, all throughout the discussion above we have assumed that pseudo-incorporated NPs bear theta roles, such as agent and theme. This raises the question of how pseudo-incorporated NPs get assigned theta roles, even though they do not have argument status. We will postpone the discussion of this question for the time being and return to it in Chapter III. In the following we will present two more constructions in Turkish which also involve immediately preverbal bare nouns, namely, idioms and light verb constructions. We will argue that these constructions are parallel to pseudo-incorporation cases and provide further evidence for the type of complex predicate formation that we have proposed for pseudo incorporation. 2.2.1 Idioms. In addition to pseudo-incorporation cases, certain idioms in Turkish involve immediately preverbal bare nouns. In the following it will be claimed that these idioms also have the structure [NP+V] and they exhibit another instance of complex predicate formation. It has been claimed that idioms involve verbs and their internal arguments, but those with external arguments, bearing an agent theta role are excluded (Marantz 1984): (87) a. kick the bucket b. take advantage of However, in Turkish both agents and themes can take part in idioms, occurring as immediately preverbal bare nouns, as seen in (88) below:


54

(agent) (88) a. Ali-yi kurt kapt . Ali-acc wolf snatched “Ali got hurt.” b. Ali surat ast . (theme) Ali face hung “Ali made a sour face.” This creates an exception for the cross-linguistic restriction that no external arguments are allowed in idiom constructions. Now let us focus on the syntactic status of these bare nouns in specific types of idioms in Turkish. Just like immediately preverbal bare nouns in nonidiomatic structures, bare nouns in idioms also behave as NP categories syntactically. Firstly, focus particles such as dA and mI, which target XP categories, can be inserted in between the verb and the bare noun forming the idiom: (89) Ali bu problem-e kafa m patlatt ? Ali this problem-dat head Q burst “Did Ali spend mental energy on this problem?” (kafa patlat-: to spend too much mental energy. [lit. to burst the head]) The verb forming the idiom can be elided under identity: (90)

Ali bu problem-e kafa patlatt , senin gibi çene de il. Ali this problem-dat head burst, you like jaw not “Ali spent mental energy on this problem, he did not just talk a lot about it like you did.” (kafa patlat-: to spend too much mental energy. [lit. to burst the head]) (çene patlat-: to talk a lot about something [lit. to burst the jaw])

In idioms bare nouns can be coordinated: (91)

Ali hem çile hem ac çekti. Ali both privation and sorrow pull “Ali suffered both privation and sorrow.” (çile çek-: to suffer privation [lit. to pull privation]) (ac çek-: to suffer sorrow [lit. to pull sorrow])


55

As seen in the examples above, idiom formation in Turkish also includes bare NPs. Given that idioms have fixed lexicalized meanings, we argue that idioms with immediately preverbal NPs can also be considered as another instance of complex predicate formation on a par with pseudo incorporation cases. Thus, a verb and a predicative NP form a predicate complex in the form of [NP+V]. This presents an immediate explanation for why agents can also take part in idioms in Turkish. As shown in pseudo incorporation cases, immediately preverbal bare nouns are not syntactic arguments but are predicative NPs. If NPs in the idioms discussed above are of the same type as the bare nouns in pseudo incorporation cases, then they will not be syntactic arguments either, but predicative NPs. Therefore they will not be subject to the restriction on idiom formation, i.e., that idioms can only involve internal arguments, but not external arguments. Again, we will return to the issue of theta role assignment to immediately predicative NPs in Chapter III. 2.2.2 Light verb constructions with et- “do”. Another construction in Turkish that involves immediately preverbal bare nouns is the light verb construction. Certain light verb constructions in Turkish are formed with a non-Turkic noun root and the light verb et- “do”. In the following it will be claimed that light verb constructions also have the [NP+V] structure, where a predicative noun selected by the light verb et- forms a complex predicate, parallel to the case of pseudo-incorporation and idioms. (92) Meclis yasa-y redd etti. assembly law-acc reject did “The assembly rejected the law.” In the construction given in (92) the light verb et- functions as a denominalizer, whereas the noun redd is also predicative in nature.29 The fact that the light verb acts as true denominalizer is evidenced by the nominal counterpart of (92), as seen in (93), where in the absence of the light verb, the same arguments with the same theta roles and case properties are available:30 (93) Meclis-in yasa-y redd-i assembly-gen law-acc reject-3ps “The assembly’s rejecting the law” The predicative noun in light verb constructions also has full NP status syntactically. We can apply the very same tests we have used for idioms and

56


pseudo incorporation to show that immediately preverbal bare nouns in light verb construction are NPs. As (94) shows, it is possible to insert an XP-targeting focus particle between the light verb and its complement, implying that the complement of the light verb can also be a bare NP: (94) Meclis yasa-y [NPredd] mi etti? assembly law-acc reject Q did “Did the assembly reject the law?” The examples in (95) illustrate coordination of the complement of the light verb with other bare nouns. Note that the coordination strategies used in these examples all target XP categories, implying that the complement of the light verb is an NP category as discussed by Öztürk (1997): (95) a. Meclis yasa-y redd de il, kabul etti. assembly law-acc reject not, accept did “The assembly did not reject but accept the law.” b. Meclis yasa-y önce redd sonra kabul etti. assembly law-acc first reject then accept did “The assembly first rejected but then accepted the law.” c. Meclis yasa-y hem kabul hem redd etti. assembly law-acc both accept and reject did “The assembly both accepted and rejected the law.” These tests clearly show that the light verb et- and its complement form a complex predicate, again in the form of [NP+V], in parallel to pseudoincorporation and idiom formation. Note that in the case of light verb constructions, the complement NP is not associated with any theta role. This is different from the situation observed in idioms and pseudo incorporation. Chapter III will introduce a detailed account of this difference with respect to theta-role assignment in relation to the role of case and referentiality in the establishment of argumenthood. 2.3 Complex Predicate Formation in Syntax In the discussion above it has been shown that Turkish allows a verb head and a non-referential bare NP to form a complex predicate. Pseudo-incorporation, idiom formation and light verb constructions all exhibit the same structure,


57

[NP+V]. This implies that sisterhood to the lexical verb head leads to complex predicate formation (See also Öztürk 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, to appear): (96)

Complex Predicate à

VP 6 V’ 6 NP V

Consider Example (97): (97) a. Doktor hasta-y muayene etti. doctor patient-acc examine did “The doctor examined the patient.” b. Doktor hasta-y muayene mi etti? doctor patient-acc examine Q did “Did the doctor examine the patient?” Example (97a) illustrates a light verb construction with the noun muayene and the light verb et-. There is also a referential nominative subject doktor and a referential accusative marked object hasta-y . In the presence of a referential subject and a referential object it is possible to insert the focus particle mI after muayene, i.e. the complement of the light verb, implying that muayene is an NP category, as seen in (97b). Now let’s consider example (98): (98) a. Doktor hasta muayene etti. (hasta: non-referential) doctor patient examine did “The doctor did patient examining.” b. Doktor hasta m muayene etti? doctor patient Q examine did “Did the doctor do patient examining?” c. *Doktor hasta muayene mi etti? doctor patient examine Q did “Did the doctor do patient examining?” Example (98a) is a case of pseudo-incorporation, where hasta is interpreted as a non-referential noun. Given the analysis above, this suggests that hasta should be forming a complex predicate along with the complex verb muayene et-. As seen in (98b) it is possible to insert the focus particle after

58


hasta implying that the noun is an NP category. However, it is not possible to insert the focus particle after the noun muayene in (98c), still retaining a nonreferential interpretation for the noun hasta. This implies that in (98c) hasta and muayene compete for the same syntactic position to be considered as part of the complex predicate, that is, for the complement position of the verb. The same case is observed in pseudo-incorporation with agents: (99) a. Hasta-y doktor muayene etti. (doktor:non-referential) patient-acc doctor examine did “The patient underwent doctor examination.” b. Hasta-y doktor mu muayene etti? (doktor: non-referential) patient-acc doctor Q examine did “Did the patient undergo doctor examination?” c. Hasta-y doktor muayene mi etti? hasta-acc doctor examine Q did i. “*Did the patient undergo doctor-examination?” ii. “Did the doctor examine the patient?” In (99a) the non-referential bare noun doktor undergoes pseudoincorporation. In (100b) it is possible to insert the focus particle after doktor implying that doktor is an NP. However, insertion of the focus particle after muayene as in (99c) does not allow a non-referential interpretation for doktor, but forces a referential one. This means that muayene and doktor compete for the sisterhood of the verb head. The ungrammaticality of (98c) and (99c) implies that there is only one NP position, namely the complement position of the verb head, where a bare NP and a verb can be interpreted as forming a complex predicate.31 The structure given in (100) is proposed as the main phrase structure of Turkish. In this structure it is implied that any NP which is the immediate sister of the lexical verb head will be interpreted as part of the complex predicate. To be interpreted as syntactic arguments, such as subjects or objects, NPs need to occur in Spec positions of higher functional categories:


59

(100)

FP 6 F’ subject 6 FP F 6 object F’ 6 Complex Predicate à VP F 6 V’ 6 NP V0

In the following section we will discuss why Turkish allows such a type of syntactic complex predicate formation in syntax in relation to the role of case-assignment in the establishment of argumenthood. 3. Case-Checking and Type-shifting In the discussion above it has been proposed that in Turkish a predicative NP and a verb head form complex predicates of the form [NP+V]. The most crucial aspect of this structure is that the predicative NP cannot act as a syntactic argument. This implies that Turkish requires a type-shifter for nouns to become arguments. This takes us back to the question we introduced earlier under the discussion of Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter, that is, what do bare nouns in Turkish denote? Chierchia (1998) has proposed three types of languages based on NP denotations: [+argument, -predicate], [+predicate, +argument] and [+predicate, -argument]. We have shown above that Turkish cannot be of the [+argument, -predicative] type since it lacks classifiers and has overt plural morphology. We have also eliminated the option that Turkish is of the [+argument, +predicate] type, as NPs in Turkish cannot be freely associated with any of the covert type-shifters. This leaves us with the only option that Turkish is of [+predicate, -argument] type. The evidence of immediately preverbal bare nouns is in compliance with this option, as we have shown that bare complement NPs in complex predicate structures are predicative. However, this implies that just as in the case of other [+predicate, -argument] type languages such as French, Turkish should also use covert or overt determiners to type-shift predicate NPs into arguments. As the discussion above has shown, there is simply no morphology that can qualify to be an overt D head in Turkish. Neither does Turkish provide any syntactic evidence for the

60


presence of an abstract DP projection. This leads us to investigate the possibility of having another functional category which can act as a type-shifter in Turkish. At the beginning of this chapter we have tentatively raised the possibility that case can be the type-shifter in Turkish given its close interaction with referentiality. Now we will consider such a possibility in detail. Unless an NP is assigned both case and referentiality, it cannot function as a syntactic argument. The role of case in the establishment of referentiality has been noticed by many works on Turkish (Sezer 1972, 1991, Tura-Sansa 1973, Nilsson 1985, 1986, Enç 1991, Kornfilt 1984, 1988, 1995, 1999, Taylan & Zimmer 1994 Aygen 1999, 2002b, Kelepir 2001, Ketrez 2003, among others).32 Consider example (101): (101) a.

Ali kitabokudu. Reng-i k rm -yd . Ali book-acc read color-3ps red-past “Ali read the book. It was red.” b. *Ali kitap okudu. Reng-i k rm -yd . Ali book read color-3ps red-past “Ali did book reading. It was red.”

In (101a) kitab- is the accusative object and it has a referential reading, that is, it introduces a discourse referent, as evidenced by the possibility of pronominal co-reference. However in (101b) the absence of accusative case leads to pseudo-incorporation, where the bare noun kitap is non-referential, and therefore, cannot introduce a discourse referent. (102) a. Köpek bahçe-de havl yor. Reng-i siyah. dog garden-loc barking color-3ps black “ The dog is barking in the garden. It is black.” b. *Bahçe-de köpek havl yor. Reng-i siyah. garden-loc dog barking color-3ps black “There is dog-barking in the garden. It is black.” In (102a) köpek occurs in the canonical subject position in Turkish, namely the sentence-initial position, where it is nominative assigned.33 It is referential and acts as an argument, and thus it is possible to refer to it with a pronominal. However, in (102b) köpek is non-referential in immediately preverbal position where it undergoes pseudo-incorporation as a predicative NP.


61

As seen in (101) and (102), the presence of case clearly changes the interpretation of NPs. NPs marked for case, or in other words, NPs occurring in positions where they can be case-marked, are interpreted as arguments and acquire referential interpretation. However, lack of case leads to a predicative interpretation for NPs, which yields pseudo-incorporation where NPs are interpreted as part of the verb complex. As discussed above, presence of case also delimits the readings that an NP can have. Case-marked bare nouns are necessarily interpreted either as kinds or as definites, but not as existentials. Note that both kinds and definites denote arguments of type e (Carlson 1977): (103) a. Ali çocu -u gördü. Ali child-acc saw “Ali saw the/*a child. “ b. Ali dondurma-y seviyor. Ali ice-cream-acc loves “Ali loves (the) ice-cream.” This highlights the role of case in the establishment of referentiality. In other words, case imposes specific readings for NPs. This implies that in the absence of overt or covert DPs case-checking establishes referentiality. Thus, we propose that in a language like Turkish, where there is no overt or covert evidence for DPs, case-assignment encodes referentiality and fulfills the task of determiners, i.e., it type-shifts predicative NPs into arguments. Hence, casechecking in Turkish is not just the equivalent of case-checking in languages like English; it also contributes to the establishment of referentiality in nouns.34, 35 Going back to the complex predicate formation observed in pseudo incorporation, idioms, and light verb constructions in Turkish, we argue that bare nouns in Turkish are of the [+predicate, -argument] type by default. When NPs are merged at a position where case-assignment is possible, they are converted into syntactic arguments. However, if they are merged at a position where case is not available, such as the complement position of lexical verbs, then they fail to be type-shifted and retain their predicative nature. Thus, they form complex predicates along with the verb, yielding structures like pseudo incorporation, idioms, and light verb constructions. Previous analyses of the data we have discussed in this chapter all fail to notice the non-argument status of immediately preverbal bare nouns instead consider them to be arguments subject to other syntactic transformations such as head-incorporation.

62


The analysis proposed by Kornfilt (1995, 2003) cannot account for the argument/non-argument distinction between case-marked nouns and immediately preverbal bare nouns. The structure she proposes for caseless preverbal bare nouns, repeated in (104) below, implies that they also have exactly the same structure as case-marked argument nouns. The only difference is that the K head in the case of immediately preverbal bare nouns is empty. However, this still implies that these nouns are both case and referentiality assigned, being embedded under a KP and a DP, just as any syntactic argument in Turkish. Therefore, her account fails to capture the crucial distinction between case-marked and non-case-marked nouns, i.e. that caseless nouns are not arguments. Furthermore, allowing head-incorporation of bare nouns embedded under KPs and DPs into a lexical verb head is in strict violation of Li’s Generalization (Li 1990) that lexical heads cannot move to another lexical head through a functional head. This poses a challenge to her account, as well: (104) a. Before incorporation VP 6 V’ 6 KP V 6 K’ 6 DP K 6 D’ e 6 NP D N’ N

e

b. After incorporation VP 6 V’ 6 KP V+NI 6 K’ 6 DP K 6 D’ ti 6 NP D N’

ti

N ti

This new analysis of case as a type-shifter in Turkish immediately offers a natural explanation for why syntactic complex predicate formation – such as pseudo-incorporation, idiom formation and light verb constructions – is available in Turkish. This follows from the fact that Turkish lacks determiners,


63

hence the functional category DP. In the absence of DPs case-assignment takes care of type-shifting, as it also encodes referentiality. Case provided by certain functional projections throughout syntactic derivation fulfills the task of determiners. That is, it is what converts a predicative noun into a referential argument. In languages with determiners, the referentiality interpretation of a noun is already completed within its own projection through determiners. In Turkish, on the other hand, the referentiality interpretation of a noun is completed throughout the syntactic derivation of the sentence via interaction with the functional categories that provide case. That is, nouns are always introduced as predicative NPs into the structure in Turkish. If they are merged into the structure as immediate sisters of lexical verbs, they remain predicative and they are computed as a part of the complex verb. This is because caseassignment is not possible at this position. However, if they are merged at the Spec of a higher functional projection, they will be type-shifted into arguments either as subjects or objects, as case-assignment type-shifts them in these positions. In languages with determiners, on the other hand, since determiners are always available, NPs are introduced into the structure already typeshifted.36 4. Conclusion Based on the evidence from three types of complex predicate formation with immediately preverbal bare nouns, we claim that referentiality assignment is dependent on case-assignment. In a language like Turkish, where there is neither syntactic nor morphological motivation for the presence of overt determiners, the requirement that all NPs be referentiality assigned in order to become arguments is contingent upon case-assignment, as case encodes referentiality. If an NP is merged at a position where case assignment is possible, it is type-shifted into an argument, as it will be both case and referentiality assigned. However, if it is merged at a position where case is not available such as the sisterhood position of a lexical verb, the NP will retain its predicative nature and form a complex predicate along with the verb as seen in the case of pseudo incorporation, light verb constructions, and idioms. Such an account immediately provides an explanation for why there are two requirements for an NP to become an argument as it argues for a direct correlation between case and referentiality. The proposal that Turkish does not have a DP but case-assignment encodes both referentiality and case features implies that languages can vary based on what functional categories are available associated with case and referentiality in their syntax. Thus, there is parametric variation between languages like Turkish and English in terms of case and referentiality assignment, which has certain implications for the

64


differences observed in their phrase structure. This parametric variation will be the topic of next chapter. 5. Appendix: Indefinites and Case The proposal made above states that in Turkish, in the absence of determiners, case acts as a semantic type-shifter yielding syntactic arguments of type e. Case in Turkish is compatible with definites, kinds and generics: (1) a. Ali kitabokudu. Ali book-acc read “Ali read the book.” b. Çocuk dün geldi. child-nom yesterday came “The child came yesterday.”

(definites)

(2) a. Köpek burada yayg n-d r. (kind) dog here widespread-DIr “The dog is/dogs are widespread here.” b. Edison ampul-*(ü) icat etti. Edison light.bulb-acc invented “Edison invented the light bulb.” (3) a. Köpek havla-r. (generic) dog bark-aorist “Dogs bark.” b. Ali köpek-ler-i /dondurma-y sev-er. Ali dog-pl-acc/ ice-cream-acc like-aorist “Ali likes dogs/ice-cream.” As seen in the data above kinds, generic terms, and definites are all marked for case in Turkish. This raises the question of what kind of typeshifter case is. Chierchia (1998) discusses the role of empty determiners found in languages like Italian. He argues that the sole role of the empty determiner in Italian is to shift the semantic type of predicative NPs into that of an argument. He argues that the meaning of the empty determiner is just SHIFT. Its content, however, is provided by whatever principles govern the choice of specific typeshifting operations. For example in Italian, the meaning of SHIFT cannot be associated with ι but with ∃, since ι is blocked by the presence of an overt


65

morphological determiner denoting definiteness. Chierchia’s discussion of SHIFT implies that potentially an empty determiner can be interpreted either as ∃, leading to an existential interpretation, or as ∩, yielding kinds, or as ι, leading to definites. As seen above, case leads to kinds and definites in Turkish. Hence we propose that case is also a kind of SHIFT, but which is only defined for ∩ and ι, that is, it strictly yields entities of type e.37 As shown in (1)-(3) case is compatible with arguments of type e. However, it is known that indefinites in Turkish, which are clearly different from kinds/generics and definites, can also be marked for case. There are two types of indefinites in Turkish: specific and non-specific. Both types are formed with the numeral bir “one”. What distinguishes specific indefinites from non-specific indefinites is the presence of accusative case. As discussed by Enç (1991) overt accusative case morphology leads to specificity in Turkish: (4) a. Ali bir kitap okudu. Ali one book read “Ali read a book” . b. Ali bir kitabokudu. Ali one book-acc read “Ali read a certain book.”

(non-specific)

(specific)

Aygen (1999, 2002b) and Kornfilt (2003) argue that not only accusative case but also all morphological cases in Turkish lead to specificity. In the following, we will discuss the two types of indefinites with respect to their interaction with case and present an account of them compatible with the main claim of this chapter, i.e. that case is a type-shifter. We will first start with the case of non-specific indefinites and then focus on indefinites denoting specificity. 5.1 Non-specific indefinites Non-specific indefinites, as illustrated in (4a), are formed without any case morphemes. Considering the lack of morphological evidence for case as an indication for their syntax and semantics, we will first investigate the possibility of whether caseless indefinites can be another instance of complex predicate formation similar to the case of pseudo-incorporation discussed above. First, we will start with the scopal properties of non-specific indefinites, and see whether they behave on a par with indefinites found in other languages.


66

Carlson (1977) proposed some tests to contrast the scopal properties of indefinites and bare plurals in English: (5) Property 1: Opacity a. Miles wants to meet policemen. [only opaque] b. Miles wants to meet a policeman. [both opaque and transparent] (6) Property 2: Differentiated Scope a. Miles killed a rabbit repeatedly. [narrow scope for repeatedly] b. Miles killed rabbits repeatedly. [wide scope for repeatedly] (7) Property 3: Anaphora a. John is trying to find some policemen and Mary is trying to find them, too. b. *John is trying to find policemen and Mary is trying to find them, too. These examples show that bare plurals are scopeless, that is, they always take the narrowest scope possible and are different from overt indefinites. Bare NPs in pseudo-incorporation cases in Turkish also always take the narrowest scope possible with respect to other scopally relevant elements in the structure. That is, scopewise they are parallel to bare plurals in English, as shown in (8)-(10): (8)

(9)

John polis görmek istiyor. John policeman see wants “John wants to see policemen.”

[want>policemen]

John tekrar tekrar tav an öldürdü. John repeatedly rabbit killed “John killed rabbits repeatedly.” [repeatedly>rabbits]


(10)

67

bulmaya çal yor, Mary de onu bulmaya *John polis John policeman find-to try Mary too him find-to cal yor. try “John is trying to find policeman and Mary is trying to find him, too.” [try>policeman]

The fact that bare NPs always take narrow scope follows from the proposal made above that they form complex predicates along with the verb. Therefore, they always take scope with the verb. Now let us focus on the scopal properties of caseless indefinites. If they are true indefinites, in one reading they should be on a par with the indefinites in English illustrated in the examples by Carlson (1977). That is, it should be possible for them to take scope over other scopally relevant elements: (11) John bir polis görmek istiyor. John one policeman see want “John wants to see a policeman.”

[want>a policeman]

(12) John tekrar tekrar bir tav an öldürdü. John repeatedly one rabbit killed “John killed a rabbit repeatedly.” [repeatedly>a rabbit] (13) John bir polis bulmaya çal yor, Mary de onu bulmaya çal yor. John one policeman find-to try Mary too him find-to try “John is trying to find a policeman and Mary is trying to find him, too.” [try>a policeman] As seen in (11)-(13), caseless indefinites also parallel bare NPs in Turkish and bare plurals in English in terms of their scopal properties. That is, they always take narrow scope, and thus do not behave as true indefinites in English. Only specific indefinites overtly marked for case in Turkish behave as true indefinites of the type found in English. Consider: (14) a. Her çocuk bir kitabokudu. every child one book-acc read “Every child read a book.” [every>indefinite, indefinite>every]


68

b. Her çocuk bir kitap okudu. every child one book read “Every child read a book.” [every>indefinite, *indefinite>every] c. Her çocuk kitap okudu. every child book read “Every child did book-reading.” [every>indefinite, indefinite>every] As seen in the contrast in (14) only accusative marked indefinites allow both wide and narrow scope readings with respect to the universal quantifier, whereas non-specific indefinites cannot take wide scope and pattern with pseudo-incorporated bare nouns. Lacking case and exhibiting exactly the same scopal properties as bare NPs in Turkish, non-specific indefinites can be considered as another instance of complex predicate formation, i.e., another instance of pseudo-incorporation.38 (15) Ali [Complex Pred bir kitap okudu] Ali one book read “Ali read a book.” Thus, we argue that both immediately preverbal bare nouns and nonspecific indefinites in Turkish share the same structure [NP+V], which we have proposed for complex predicate formation: (16)

V’ ru NP V

Such an analysis of caseless indefinites in Turkish raises the question as to the nature of the numeral bir in these constructions. Traditionally bir is defined as an indefinite article (Lewis 1967, Underhill 1976, Gencan 1979, Kornfilt 1997, Banguo lu 1990, among others). As discussed above, it is not possible to consider bir to be an indefinite article. There are no definite articles in Turkish. Typologically, there are no languages which lack a definite article but have an indefinite one (Crisma 1997 and Longobardi 2001a), therefore, to assume that Turkish has an indefinite article in the absence of definite articles would make Turkish highly exceptional in terms of language typology. Furthermore, both lexical and functional categories occur head-finally in Turk-


69

ish. Assuming bir to be a determiner, i.e. a functional head, would create an exception in Turkish head-directionality, since bir strictly precedes nouns. Therefore, we argue that bir cannot be a true determiner. Then the question is what it is exactly. It is known that bir has two different realizations in Turkish, one being the unstressed version (bir) giving the indefinite reading, the other being the stressed version (B R), giving the numeral interpretation (Tura-Sansa 1973, Sezer 1991, among others). As seen in (17) each interpretation of bir exhibits certain distributional restrictions with respect to adjectives. In (17a) the unstressed bir follows the adjective, simply denoting a singular indefinite book, whereas in (17b) the stressed B R precedes the adjective and is interpreted as denoting quantity. Unstressed bir is ungrammatical in this position. Note that the distribution of B R is parallel to that of other numerals. Numerals other than bir also occur preceding adjectives, as shown in (17c). (17) a. Ali k rm bir kitap ald . Ali read one book bought “Ali bought a read book.” (an indefinite/arbitrary book) b. Ali B R/*bir k rm kitap ald . Ali one red book bought “Ali bought one book. (not two)” c. Ali iki k rm kitap ald . Ali two red book bought “Ali bought two red books.” Stressed

R and unstressed bir exhibit other distributional differences

as well: (18) a. Ali iki k rm kitap okudu, ben de B R [ rm kitap okudum] Ali two red book read, I too one red book read “Ali read two red books, and I read one.” b. Ali k rm bir kitap okudu, *ben de ye il bir [kitap okudum] Ali red one book read, I too green one book read “Ali read a red book, and I read a green one.” c. Ali iki kitabokudu, *ben de bir [kitabokudum] Ali two book-acc read, I too one book-acc read “Ali read two of the books, and I read one.” As seen in (18a) it is possible to strand the stressed R when VP is deleted under identity. However, stranding unstressed bir via deletion is not


70

possible as in (18b). This suggests that R does not belong to the NP projection as bir does. It is not possible to strand the numeral when it is part of a case-marked object as shown in (18c). This also supports the independent status of R. Therefore, we argue that R is not a modifier of the pseudoincorporated NP, but it is introduced externally. As shown in (19) R is not a part of the NP, thus it is excluded from the complex predicate. (19) Ali [ R [CompPred [ rm kitap ald ]] Ali one red book bought “Ali bought one red book.” Is there any evidence for a structure that excludes numerals from complex predicates formed by pseudo-incorporation? And what does it mean for R to be external to the complex predicate? Turkish also exhibits numeral quantification with tane constructions, which can only be used when there is no case marking (Öztürk 2002b): (20)

a. Ali [bir tane [CompPred [ rm kitap okudu]] Ali one cl red book read “Ali did book reading for one unit of red book.” Meaning: Ali read one book. b. Ali [ti CompPred [ rm kitap okudu] [bir tane]] i Ali red book read one cl “Ali did red book reading for one unit of book.” Meaning: Ali read one book.

Example (20a) has the same interpretation as (19). It is possible to background the [numeral + classifier tane] construction as seen in (20b), which implies that [numeral + classifier tane] undergoes movement independent from the noun kitap. It modifies the whole event of book reading on a par with adverbs. Tane constructions are highly parallel to Japanese Split Measure Phrases (MP) discussed by Nakanishi (2003) and shown in (21b). Nakanishi (2003) argues that 3-liters acts as an adverbial in (21b), which indirectly measures the event by measuring water which the spilling event is mapped onto.39, 40


koboreta. (21) a. Mizu 3-littoru-ga kinoo water 3-liter-nom yesterday spilled “3 liters of water spilled yesterday.” b. Mizu-ga kinoo 3-littoru koboreta. water-nom yesterday 3-liter spilled “3-liters of water spilled yesterday.”

71 (Nakanishi 2003)

Tane constructions occupy the same position as other event-related adverbials: (22) a. Ali [üç saat/gün [CompPred kitap okudu]] Ali three hour/day book read “Ali did book reading for three hours/days.” b. Ali [ti [kitap okudu [üç saat/gün]] i Ali book read three hour/day “Ali did book reading for three hours/days.” Based on the Turkish facts and cross-linguistic evidence, we argue that tane phrases are adverbials that measure the event from a VP adjoined position. As for the constructions with stressed R we propose that they are also derivationally related to tane constructions and are formed via tane deletion, as shown in (23a) and (23b). However, there is one difference between tane constructions and the forms with R. R, unlike tane phrases, cannot occur postverbally, as in (23c). We argue that this is because tane deletion can only be licensed when the adverb precedes VP. Tane drop leaves an empty category behind, which blocks the movement of R: (23)

a. Ali [ R tane [VP kitap okudu]] Ali one count book read “Ali did book reading for one unit of book.” Meaning: Ali read one book. b. Ali [ R t [VP kitap okudu]] Ali one book read “Ali did book reading for one unit of book.” Meaning: Ali read one book. c. *Ali [ ti [kitap okudu] [ R t] i Ali book read one “Ali did book reading for one unit of book.” Meaning: Ali read one book.


72

Thus we propose that the stressed R is a VP level adverb, which modifies the complex predicate formed via pseudo-incorporation, as illustrated in (19). Then the question is what the function of unstressed bir is. With respect to syntactic distribution, unstressed bir needs to follow adjectives, which modify the noun. As illustrated in (18b), unlike stressed R, it belongs to the NP domain, not the VP domain. Considering its position with respect to adjectives, it might be claimed that the unstressed bir is also a modifier of NPs, similar to adjectives. That is, it modifies the bare NP in the complex predicate formed via pseudo incorporation. Bare NPs in pseudo-incorporation are number neutral; that is, they do not bear any information regarding singularity or plurality. Turkish has a plural morpheme –lAr; however, bare NPs without plural morpheme does not denote singularity but are number neutral. Unstressed bir is an atomicity denoting predicate modifier, which implies that the pseudo-incorporated NP is atomic, that is, singular.41, 42 To summarize, we argue that non-specific indefinites formed with bir are also cases of pseudo-incorporation. We also claim that, as has long been recognized in the literature, there are two types of bir in Turkish. The unstressed bir is a predicate modifier, which modifies the NP just like any other adjective. It simply denotes singularity/atomicity. The stressed R, on the other hand, parallel to tane constructions, is an adverbial, modifying the event formed by pseudo-incorporation. The most crucial aspect of the discussion above is that we propose a unified account for the case of immediately preverbal bare nouns and non-specific indefinites. Deriving both structures under the complex predicate construction presents a natural account for their identical behavior with respect to scope. A recent account by Aydemir (2004), however, argues that immediately preverbal bare nouns and non-specific indefinites have different syntactic structures. She proposes (24a) and (24b) as the structures for non-specific indefinites and incorporated immediately preverbal bare nouns respectively: (24)

a.

V’ V ru NP V

b.

VP V’ ru N V

She argues that non-specific indefinites are full phrasal categories, and as such they occupy syntactic argument positions, whereas immediately preverbal bare nouns are incorporated head categories and they do not act as


73

syntactic arguments. However, we have introduced sufficient evidence above that bare nouns are phrasal categories, but not noun heads. Therefore, we argue that the structure Aydemir (2004) proposes for immediately preverbal bare nouns is not compatible with the Turkish facts. Yet, Aydemir (2004) provides interesting set of data to contrast immediately preverbal bare nouns with nonspecific indefinites in order to support the structures she proposes in (24). In the following we will go over each one of her arguments and show that neither of them really poses a challenge to the unified complex predicate account we have proposed both for preverbal bare nouns and for non-specific indefinites under pseudo incorporation. The first argument she presents to distinguish preverbal nouns from non-specific indefinites relies on non-derived adverbs discussed by Taylan (1984): (25) a. Mehmet kötü araba kullan- yor. Mehmet bad car use-prog “Mehmet drives badly.” b. Mehmet kötü bir araba kullan- yor. Mehmet bad one car use-prog “Mehmet drives a bad car.”

(Aydemir 2004)

She argues that in (25a) kötü ‘bad’ is an adverb, whereas in the (25b) it is obligatorily interpreted as an adjective modifying the head N araba ‘car’. She states that the structure given in (25b) presents an explanation for the adverbial interpretation since the modifier is in the preverbal position preceding the complex predicate [N+V] formed via head incorporation. However, presence of a phrasal category in the object position as in (25b) forces an adjectival reading, since the modifier is not preverbal. Thus, she concludes that bare nouns and non-specific indefinites do not have the same structure. Under our unified account, on the other hand, such an obligatory distinction should not be available and the non-derived modifier in (25b) should potentially be interpreted as an adverb modifying the complex predicate, in addition to being an adjective modifying the non-specific NP. This is indeed the case, as illustrated in (26). Non-derived modifiers can also allow adverbial readings preceding non-specific indefinites: (26) a. Ali h zl bir kitap okudu, iki de il. Ali fast one book read, two not “Ali read one book quickly, not two.”

74


b. Ali h zl çok kal n bir kitap okudu, ince bir kitap de il. Ali fast very thick one book read, thin one book not “Ali read a very thick book quickly, not a thin one.” Also consider: (27) a. Mehmet h zl araba kullan- yor. Mehmet fast car use-prog “Mehmet drives fast/Mehmet drives fast cars.” b. Mehmet h zl k rm bir araba kullan- yor, (ye il bir motosiklet Mehmet fast red one car use-prog green one motorcycle not de il) “Mehmet drives a red car fast, (not a green motorcycle)” c. Mehmet h zl k rm bir araba-y kullan- yor, (ye il bir Mehmet fast red one car-acc use-prog green one motosiklet de il) motorcycle not i. “Mehmet drives a fast red car, (not a green motorcycle.)” ii. “*Mehmet drives a red car fast, (not a green motorcycle.)” Both in (27a), and crucially in (27b), which illustrates a case of nonspecific indefinites, it is possible to have the non-derived modifier zl interpreted as an adverb. The part in parentheses creates a contrastive focus reading, which highlights the adverbial interpretation. However, with casemarked specific indefinites, as in (27c), adverbial reading is not available even under the contrastive focus interpretation, and only the adjectival reading is possible. This is because case-marked NPs are true syntactic arguments and cannot be considered to be a part of the predicate. However, the constructions formed both with non-specific indefinites and preverbal bare nouns allow such a reading since they can be analyzed as cases of complex predicates, as seen in (27a) and (27b). Therefore, we argue that Aydemir (2004)’s argument based on the contrast given in (25) is not sufficient to argue for the different structures for preverbal bare nouns versus non-specific indefinites illustrated in (24). Another argument that Aydemir (2004) gives for the structures in (24) is based on ellipsis. She argues that deletion of the bare N, leaving the verb head, is not possible, as seen in (28a), whereas the elipsis of both the noun and the verb is grammatical, as in (28b). Ellipsis of only the non-specific indefinite, leaving the verb is acceptable, as seen in (28c). She argues that this


75

distinction follows from the structure in (24b), where the bare noun does not form an independent constituent from the verb head. (28) a. Bütün gün kitap okudu-m, *sana da oku-ma-nall day book read-1ps you too read-nom-2ps-acc tavsiye eder-im. recommend-1ps “I read books/did book reading all day, I recommend you to read, too.” b. Bütün gün kitap okudum, sana da tavsiye eder-im. all day book read-1ps you too recommend-1ps “I read books/did book reading all day, I recommend you to do that, too.” c. Dün bir kitap okudu-m, sana da okuma-nyesterday one book read-1ps you too read-nom-2ps-acc tavsiye eder-im. recommend-1ps “I read a book yesterday, I recommend you to read (it), too.” d. Dün bir kitap okudum, sana da tavsiye eder-im. yesterday one book read-1ps you too recommend-1ps “I read a book yesterday, I recommend it to you, too.” However, as discussed in detail above bare nouns do have an independent syntactic status as an NP category. Therefore, her conclusion does not necessarily argue that bare nouns are head categories. It is possible to account for the ungrammaticality in (28a) based on the nature of the empty category left after NP deletion takes place. The pro substituting the bare NP requires a referential antecedent with number specification, whereas the bare NP is strictly non-referential and number neutral. Thus, the non-referential nature of the bare NP fails to meet the feature specification of pro. Nonreferentiality and number neutrality are general characteristics of pseudoincorporated nouns (Farkas & de Swart 2003, Dayal 2003). Co-reference with the non-specific NP by a pro in (28c), on the other hand, is allowed. Note that non-specific indefinites, being also cases of pseudo-incorporation, are nonreferential as well. However, due to the presence of bir, non-specific indefinites are not number-neutral. They denote singularity and thus partially cover the feature specification of pro. Therefore, coreference through accomodation is possible. It is known that in languages like Hungarian, which allow pseudo incorporation of plurals, in addition to number-neutral bare nouns, plurals do allow co-reference, whereas number-neutral bare nouns

76


strictly disallow such a possibility. Farkas & de Swart (2003) argue that this difference has to do with the requirements of the pronominal element. Thus, (28) does not challenge the unified structure we proposed for bare nouns and non-specific indefinites. Aydemir (2004) also presents the following data to contrast the coreference possibilities between bare nouns and non-specific indefinites: (29) a. *Dün filmi seyretti-m, onui/onlar i sen de seyret-meli-sin. yesterday film watch-1ps, that/those you too watch-mod-2ps “I watched movies/did movie watching yesterday, you should watch them, too.” b. Dün bir filmi seyretti-m, onui sen de seyret-meli-sin. yesterday one film watch-1ps, that you too watch-mod-2ps “I watched a movie yesterday, you should watch it, too.” She argues that it is possible to refer to the indefinite with an overt pronoun since, as shown in the structure in (24a), the indefinite functions as a true syntactic object, whereas the bare noun is just a part of the lexical complex predicate. However, we can argue against this proposal again based on feature specifications of pronouns in Turkish, similar to the case of pro. That is, availability of number information in the case of indefinites partially meets the feature specifications of the overt pronoun. Thus, coreference via accomodation is possible. Aydemir (2004) also discusses the aspectual differences observed between bare nouns and non-specific indefinites. She claims that presence of a telic interpretation is only possible with non-specific indefinites as shown in (30b) and this follows from the structure in (24a), where the indefinite acts as a true syntactic object and measures out the event, leading to a telic interpretation à la Tenny (1994). (30) a. Ali (bir saat boyunca)/(*bir saat-te) çay iç-ti. Ali (one hour along)/ ( one hour-loc.) tea drink-past. “Ali drank tea (for an hour)/(*in an hour).” b. Ali (bir saat-te) bir (bardak) çay iç-ti. Ali (one hour-loc) one glass tea drink-past “Ali drank a (glass of) tea.” However, it has been shown in the literature that measuring out is not necessarily confined to affected direct arguments as claimed by Tenny (1994)


77

Jackendoff (1996), Di Sciullo & Slabakova (2001), Nakanishi (2003). Not all verbs with affected direct arguments yield telicity (Jackendoff 1996). Measuring out can also be introduced at the VP level via certain aspectual particles, as in Slavic languages (Di Sciullo & Slabakova 2001) or via adverbial Measure Phrases, as in Japanese (Nakanishi 2003). Furthermore, in (30b) it is not certain that telicity results from the presence of an object, as the same predicate is compatible with a durative adverb that forces an atelic reading, as in (31a). This suggests that the non-specific indefinite does not really impose (a)telicity. Only case-marked NPs that are true syntactic objects can force telicity, as shown in (31b): (31)

a. Ali (bir saat boyunca) bir (bardak) çay iç-ti. Ali (one hour along) one glass tea drink-past “Ali drank a (glass of) tea for an hour.” b. Ali bir (bardak) çay- (*bir saat boyunca)/(bir saat-te) Ali one glass tea-acc (one hour along)/ (one hour-loc) iç-ti. drink-past “Ali drank a (glass of) tea in an hour/*for an hour.”

Therefore, we conclude that telicity cannot by itself be a sufficent test to argue for the objecthood of non-specific indefinites. As the discussion above shows, neither of the arguments presented by Aydemir (2004) poses a challenge for the unified structure we have proposed in (16) above. Thus, we conclude that both immediately preverbal bare nouns and non-specific indefinites share the same structure given in (16), that is, they are both cases of complex predicate formation. 5.2 Specific Indefinites In the discussion above we have shown that non-specific indefinites in Turkish form another case of complex predicate on a par with pseudo incorporation. Now we will focus on how specific indefinites are formed in Turkish and how they interact semantically with case. It has been observed that in Turkish the presence of accusative case on indefinite objects yields specificity, as illustrated by the contrast in (32) (Taylan 1984, Nilsson 1985, 1986, Enç 1991, Zidani-Ero lu 1997b, Aygen 1999, 2002b, Kelepir 2001). (32) a. Ali bir kitap okudu. Ali one book read “Ali read a book.”

(non-specific)

78


b. Ali bir kitabokudu. Ali one book-acc read “Ali read a certain book.”

(specific)

We have claimed that case in Turkish is semantically compatible with kinds and definites. Specific indefinites, however, also require case in Turkish, and this presents a challenge for the type-shifter status of case, as they denote neither kind nor true definiteness. In the following, we will first summarize certain accounts proposed for specific indefinites in the literature, and then answer the question of how Turkish case can be compatible with specific indefinites. The literature provides different definitions of specificity. One of the accounts, proposed by Fodor and Sag (1982), argues that specific indefinites refer to an individual that the speaker has in mind; therefore, they are on a par with referential expressions. Specificity interpretation of indefinites is thus independent of the quantificational interpretation of indefinites. Enç (1991), on the other hand, argues that specificity interpretation follows from partitivity, which requires previous discourse for the speaker and the hearer to relate the denotation of the noun phrase to. Specific indefinites denote individuals picked out from a previously mentioned set. Enç has shown that accusative case in Turkish brings in a covert partitive reading, that is, a specific reading for the NP in question, thus it introduces into the domain of discourse individuals from a previously given set. Consider the contrast between B and B’ below: (33) A: Odam-a birkaç çocuk girdi. (Enç 1991:6) my-room-dat several children entered “Several children entered my room.” B: ki k ztan yordum. two girl-acc I-knew “I knew two girls (from the set of children that entered my room).” B’: ki kiz tan yordum. Two girl I-knew “I knew two girls.” Kelepir (2001) argues against both Fodor & Sag (1982) and Enç (1991). She claims that specific indefinites in Turkish are neither partitive nor referential, but are presuppositional in the sense of Diesing (1992). That is, a quantifier is presuppositional if its restrictor is presupposed to denote a non-


79

empty set.43 Specific indefinites in Turkish are not partitive, as they do not necessarily denote partitivity with intensional predicates, yet always take wide scope with regard to intensional predicates as illustated in (34): (34) A: Ahmet bugünlerde ne yap yor? (Kelepir 2001:80) Ahmet nowadays what doing “What is Ahmet doing these days?” B: Bir çevirmen-i ar yor. an interpreter-acc looking.for “He is looking for an interpreter (de re)” B’: Ahmet çevirmen-ler-den bir-i-ni ar yor. (Kelepir 2001:81) Ahmet interpreter-pl-abl one-3s-acc looking.for “Ahmet is looking for one of the interpreters.” Kelepir (2001) shows that the answer in B is not necessarily equivalent to B’, the partitive form. This would be an infelicitous answer to A unless there has not been a mentioning of some set of interpreters before in the discourse. Kelepir (2001) also shows that specific indefinites cannot be referential since they can take narrow scope with respect to subject quantifiers: (35) Herkes bir kitabokudu. Everybody a book-acc read “Everybody read a book.”

(Kelepir 2001:84)

Example (35) is ambiguous in two ways: (i) there are two books that everybody read and (ii) for everybody there was a different book. Kelepir (2001) argues that the availability of the reading (ii) shows that specific indefinites do not necessarily have wide scope possible, as referential NPs do, but can also have narrow scope with respect to a c-commanding quantifier. Arguing that specific indefinites in Turkish are neither referential nor partitive, but purely presuppositional, she proposes a choice function analysis in parallel to Lidz (1999). She argues that the existential operator which binds the choice function variable has to be above subject universal quantifiers, as in (36a), for the de re reading. For the de dicto reading of the indefinite in (36b), she claims that the function is dependent on the value chosen by the universal quantifier: (36) a. ∃f ∀x [student (x) → read (x, f(book))] b.∃f ∀x [student (x) → read (x, fx(book))]

wide scope narrow scope

80


Aygen (1999, 2002b), on the other hand, takes a different venue and presents a classification of quantifiers in Turkish following the proposal by Beghelli and Stowell (1997). She classifies indefinite quantifiers headed by baz “some”, birçok “several”, bare numeral QPs like üç çocuk “three kids”, the universal quantifier bütün “all” and definite plurals as group denoting quantifier phrases, whereas she argues that the universal quantifier her “every” is a distributivity-denoting quantifier. She claims that bir, on the other hand, is ambiguous between a numeral quantifier and an existential quantifier. She argues that except in the case of distributivity denoting universal quantifier her “every”, bir as an existential quantifier yields a collective reading with group denoting quantifiers: (37) Üç çocuk/baz /bütün çocuklar bir araba-y ald . three child/some/all children one car-acc bought “Three/some/all children bought one of the cars.” (38) Her çocuk bir araba-y ald . every child one car-acc bought “Every child bought a car.” i. ∃ >∀ ii. ∀ >∃

(collective)

(distributive)

She argues that since bir is an existential quantifier, it can take scope over the distributivity denoting quantifier her.44 Neither of the accounts given for specific indefinites is compatible with the claim we have made for the type-shifting status of case, namely, that case is only compatible with referentials. Fodor and Sag (1982) would be compatible with our account. However, as Kelepir (2001) shows, specific indefinites in Turkish are not fully referential, as they do not always take wide scope like true referentials do. Therefore, Fodor and Sag’s analysis is not sufficient to account for the Turkish facts. In the literature there is a recent proposal for specific indefinites by Schwarzchild (2002), which is known as singleton indefinites. Schwarzschild (2002) assumes that indefinites express existential quantification and just like other quantifiers they also exhibit implicit domain restrictions. Based on these assumptions he argues that the exceptional characteristics of indefinites follow from the properties of their domains. Consider the following example by Schwarzchild (2002):


81

(39) a. Everyone at the party voted to watch a movie that Phil liked. b. A movie that Phil liked was such that everyone at the party voted to watch it. He argues that wide scope reading of indefinites is due to their having a singleton domain. That is, in the case of (39a) above, if Phil likes only one movie, then the restrictor of the indefinite will have a singleton extension. This makes the truth condition of (39a) equivalent to (39b). When the domain of an existential is a singleton set, the scope of an indefinite with respect to another quantifier is neutralized and it becomes scopeless. This is what yields the socalled wide scope interpretation. He argues that indefinites are exceptional as only they can have singleton extensions. In other words, singleton indefinites are subject to contextual delimitation with respect to their domains. This leads to an almost definite reading, which captures the intuition behind Fodor and Sag (1982)’s indefinites-as-referentials analysis. There is one difference between definites and specific indefinites, though, and because of this difference they cannot be used interchangeably. Definites are subject to familiarity conditions that do not apply to indefinites. In indefinites there is no requirement that the referent be familiar to all discourse participants, whereas definites have to be familiar to both the speaker and the hearer. The most crucial aspect of Schwarzschild’s analysis for our purposes is the assumption that both definites and specific indefinites can have singleton extensions. This provides an explanation why case in Turkish can also be compatible with specific indefinites.45 If we assume that case in Turkish is also sensitive to domains, then it is expected for it to apply to both specific indefinites and definites. Thus, we conclude that adopting Schwarzchild (2002)’s approach we can account for why case is compatible with specific indefinites, as well as with definites and kinds.46 Going back to the previous accounts by Kelepir (2001) and Aygen (2002b), we see one obvious problem with their accounts. They both consider the narrow scope of case marked indefinites to be on a par with caseless indefinites, which take the narrowest scope, as well. However, the narrow scope of case-marked indefinites is the intermediate scope; it is never the narrowest scope. Consider a context where there are three students in class and the teacher assigns three novels:

82


(40) Her çocuk bir kitab-*( ) okudu: John Romeo ve Juliet-i, Mary every child one book-acc read: John R & J-acc, Mary Moby Dick-i, Bill Pollyanna-y MD-acc, Bill P-acc “Every child read one book: John read R & J, Mary read MD and Bill read P.” Dropping accusative case in (40) is unacceptable given such a preceding context, since it yields a non-specific indefinite interpretation. Nonspecific indefinites being complex predicates under our account are nonreferential, and thus are incompatible with such a context. The interpretation attained with accusative case above is the intermediate scope of specific indefinites. Note that it is strictly different than the scopeless reading of nonspecifics. This intermediate scope reading supports Schwarzchild’s analysis of indefinites. It means that for every child there is a specific book (a singleton set) that that child read. To conclude, we argue that given their singleton extensions it is not exceptional for case to be compatible with specific indefinites along with kinds and definites.47


83

Notes 1

Note that this claim is only relevant for languages with overt articles.

2

Aygen (1999) argues that the numeral bir in Turkish is not a determiner but a numeral quantifier, because of its scopal properties. Against the determiner account of bir, Aygen (2002b) argues that bir is ambiguous between the readings of a numeral quantifier and an existential quantifier. In the appendix to this chapter, however, we will propose an alternative account for bir. 3

Another category which is considered to be the morphological realization of determiners in languages like English is possessives. However, possessive pronouns in Turkish also pattern with demonstratives in terms of distribution, that is, they are always prenominal, which is not compatible with the head-final pattern. This implies that they cannot be functional heads but must be prenominal modifiers. Bo kovi (2003) also proposes that possessives in SerboCroatian are adjectival in nature. For example, they can occur in typical adjectival positions, such as the predicative position of a copula construction. This is not possible for possessives in English: (i) Ova knjiga je moja *This book is my. Turkish possessives and demonstratives can also occur in such positions, highlighting their modifier nature: (ii) a. Bu kitap benim. b. Ali bu. This book my Ali this “This book is my.” “Ali is this.” 4

Note that as bir “one” is not a determiner, the lack of existential interpretation for bare nouns cannot be due to the presence of an existentiality denoting overt determiner blocking the application of an existentiality denoting covert type-shifter. 5

Note that Kornfilt (1991), based on historical data, argues for a DP projection in Turkish. Aygen (2003) also adopts Longobardi (1994) and proposes a DP projection for Turkish relative clauses. See also Öztürk (2002b) for DPs in Turkish. 6

See Taylan (1984), Kelepir (1996), Kornfilt (1996), Kural (1997) and Göksel (1998), Aygen (2000a, 2000b, 2002a) for right adjunction in Turkish. 7

The only distributional restriction exhibited by NPs in Turkish is the case of bare nouns not overtly marked for case: (i) Ali kitap okudu. (ii) *Kitap Ali okudu. Ali book read book Ali read. “Ali did book-reading.” Note that the structure in one has been analyzed as a case of head-incorporation (Mithun 1984, Knecht 1986, Nilsson 1985, 1986, Kornfilt 1995, 2003, Schroeder 1999, Aydemir 2004, among others). Therefore, the restrictional distribution does not necessarily follow from the presence of an empty D head. In Section 2 we will return to such cases and argue that non-case-marked bare NPs in Turkish do not undergo head-incorporation, but are cases of pseudo-incorporation.

84


We will also show that they lack argument status, which further implies that they are not relevant to argue for a D head which is only required for argument NPs. 8

Pronouns are taken to be D heads (Longobardi 1994). Therefore, they do not occur in head positions in NPs given the [DP[NP] configuration. However, in Turkish there is evidence that pronouns can be treated as N heads. As shown below it is possible to modify pronouns with demonstratives, numerals and adjectives: (i) Ben art k o eski ben de il-im. this no.longer that old I not-1ps “I am no longer that old I.” (ii) Bir ben var ben-den içeri. one I there.is I-abl inside “There is a different I in me.” (from Yunus Emre: an Anatolian poet from the 13th century) (iii) Sen-im-i ben-den al-ma. you-1ps-acc I-abl take-neg “Do not take my you from me.” (from Kenan Do ulu: a contemporary Turkish pop singer) 9

See Göksel and Özsoy (2003) for the discussion of the marker dA as a topic/focus associated clitic. See also Taylan (1984), Ergin (1975), Kerslake (1996) and Erdal (2000) for the functions of dA. 10

Note that case morphology is strictly head final, thus it is in compliance with the head final pattern observed in other phrasal categories in Turkish. 11

Cinque (1993) claims that in compounds it is the complement which receives the stress not the head. If there is no complement but a specifier then the head is stressed. This implies that in the constructions in (51c) the noun kitap “book” originates from a complement position. 12

In Turkish the focus particles mI and DA can target XP categories as in (i), but they can also occur in verbal complexes which act as single words phonologically, as in (ii) as discussed by Besler (1999). See also Kerslake (1996), Erdal (2000) and Göksel and Özsoy (2003): (i) a. Ali [NPkitab- ] okudu? Ali book-acc Q read “Did Ali read THE BOOK?” b. Ali [NPkitab- ] da okudu. Ali book-acc also read “Ali read THE BOOK, too.” (ii) a. O gel-me-mi -mi-y-di. He come-not-perf-Q-cop-past “Hadn’t he come already?” b. O gel-me-ye-de-bil-ir-di. He come-not-abil-also-abil-aorist-past “He might also NOT have come.” Given that focus particles in Turkish can occur within verbal complexes in addition to targeting XP categories, Kornfilt (2003) argues that the fact that focus particles can occur in


85

incorporation cases does not necessarily argue against the head status of bare nouns. She claims that this is actually in accordance with the head status of bare nouns, since focus particles can also occur inside morphologically complex words. The focus particle bile, however, cannot occur in verbal complexes, but it can occur in between the verb and the bare noun in incorporation cases, as shown in (53c): (iii) a. *O gel-me-mi -bile-y-di. He come-not-perf-even-cop-past b. *O gel-me-ye-bile-bil-ir-di. He come-not-abil-even-abil-aorist-past However, it is possible to have bile after XP categories: (iv) Ali bile geldi. Ali even came “Even Ali came.” To support the claim that immediately preverbal bare nouns are head categories, Kornfilt (2003) provides the following example for bile: (v) Hasan dua bile etti. Hasan prayer even do-past “Hasan even prayed.” She argues that dua et- forms a single verbal domain. Therefore, the fact that bile can occur in incorporation cases does not necessarily argue against the head status of immediately preverbal bare nouns. However, in Section 2.2.2 we will show that nouns like dua “prayer” in (v) are indeed phrasal categories. Therefore, the argumentation that Kornfilt (2003) has for the focus particles discussed above is not sufficient to refute the phrasal nature of immediately preverbal nouns. The coordination facts, verb ellipsis cases and modification possibilities also support the phrasal nature of bare nouns. Therefore, we conclude that immediately preverbal nouns are full XP categories. 13

For accounts of causatives in Turkish see Lewis (1967), Aissen (1974), Zimmer (1976), Taylan (1979), Dede (1984), Knecht (1986), Göksel (1991), Kural (1996), among others. 14

Note that in Turkish within a single clause a case morpheme cannot be assigned more than once, i.e., it is not possible to have double accusatives or double datives in a single clause (cf. Lewis 1967, Aissen 1974, Zimmer 1976, Taylan 1979, 1984, Göksel 1993, among others). 15 Kornfilt (2003) considers this not to be “an insurmountable problem” for the head incorporation analysis. She states that under causativization accusative case is not available for the causee in lexical units involving predicate nouns and light verbs: (i) a. Hasan Ali-ye dua et-tir-di. (Kornfilt 2003: 148) Hasan Ali-dat prayer do-caus-past “Hasan made Ali pray.” b. Hasan Ali-ye dua et-tir-di Hasan Ali-dat prayer do-caus-past “Hasan made Ali pray.” She argues that it is not possible to analyze the predicate dua et- as a complement noun dua and a case-assigning main verb et-, given that there is no corresponding sequence with an unincorporated complement surfacing with accusative such as:

86


(ii) *Hasan bu dua-y et-ti. Hasan this prayer-acc do-past “Hasan prayed this prayer.” She argues that since lexical units such as dua et- are also treated the same way under causativization, i.e., as if they are transitives, “the fact that sequences consisting of bare objects and main verbs are also treated like transitives in causatives is not problematic” for the head incorporation analysis. She suggests that this can be considered to follow from the nature of causativization in Turkish, which she does not present an account for. However, quite a number of native speakers find the construction given in (ii) perfectly acceptable if it is given in a discourse of the following kind: (iii) Hep mutlu olun, in allah! Hasan siz-e bu dua-y et-ti. always happy be, hopefully Hasan you-dat this prayer-acc do-past “Always be happy! Hasan said this prayer for you.” This implies that dua et- should also be considered as a complement and a accusative assigning verb. Therefore, despite what is assumed by Kornfilt (2003), the fact that incorporation cases behave as if they are transitives poses a serious problem for the head incorporation analysis. We will return to the interaction between incorporation and causativization in Chapter III, where we will present a new proposal to account for the transitivity of incorporated structures. 16

Note that Kornfilt (1995) assumes that bare nouns are syntactic arguments but in the case of head- incorporation all bare nouns, including the agents, are base-generated as immediate complements of the verb. This is an obvious problem for her analysis and it also contradicts Baker’s cross-linguistic account of incorporation, which she adopts in her study. In Kornfilt (2003), on the other hand, she assumes that incorporated agents are base-generated in [Spec, VP] and the N head of the agent incorporates into the verb head. However, such an analysis is also highly problematic cross-linguistically, since it implies that agents can be incorporated as long as they are VP-internal. The account proposed by Kornfilt (2003) fails to explain why head incorporation of agents is possible in Turkish, whereas it is strictly banned in other languages. Therefore, we conclude that head-incorporation analyses are not compatible with the Turkish data, despite the attempts of Kornfilt (1995) and (2003). 17

Orgun and Inkelas (2004) also provide morphophonological evidence for the XP status of bare nouns based on stress patterns and argue that bare nouns do not undergo head incorporation in Turkish. 18

Note that even though Niuean exhibits some cases which can be considered to be instances of agent incorporation, Massam (2001) does not take a stand on this and does not argue the possibility of having agent incorporation in Niuean. 19 Note that it is possible to interpret (73) as the scrambled case of (72), that is, kitap “book” can be interpreted as a definite book. However, this requires a phonological pause between the noun kitap and the verb oku- “read”. Such a pause does not exist under the pseudo-incorporated reading, as the incorporated noun and verb act as a single unit. 20

Note that as extensively discussed in the literature intransitives in Turkish exhibit a variable behavior, that is, they can be interpreted either as unergatives or unaccusatives (Aissen 1974, Özkaragöz 1980, 1986, Biktimir 1986, Knecht 1986, Göksel 1990, 1993, Kornfilt 1997,


87

Nakipo lu-Demiralp (2002), among others). We assume that the impersonal passive reading is only available when no syntactic object position is projected. See Chapter III for details. 21

Kennelly (1997) argues that nonspecific logical subjects of unaccusatives remain as VPinternal arguments with weak case. She claims that transitive and unergative verbs in Turkish will never have a nonspecific subject. 22

Note that it is possible to interpret (75) as the scrambled form of (i): (i) Ar Ali-yi soktu. bee Ali-acc stung “The bee stung Ali.” That is, ar “bee” can be interpreted as definite. However, this requires a phonological pause between the noun ar and the verb sok- “stung”. Such a pause does not exist under the pseudoincorporated reading, as the incorporated noun and verb act as a single unit. Therefore, the construction in (75) strictly differs from (i). 23

See Taylan (1990) for properties of control in Turkish.

24

Note once more that as Turkish is a scrambling language it is possible to interpret (79b) as the scrambled counterpart of (79a), where the noun polis is referential. Under the non-pseudo incorporation reading, (79b) is grammatical. 25

It could be claimed that there is a null expletive in the subject position in agent pseudo incorporation. Whether a null subject is required in these constructions or not will be discussed in Chapter III. 26

Note that this difference follows from the non-referential nature of pseudo-incorporated NPs. Modification via relative clauses forces the NP to be interpreted as referential, therefore it is not a possible candidate for pseudo incorporation. Also, Dayal (2003) argues that pseudoincorporated NPs should be appropriately classificatory, that is, the event formed via pseudoincorporation should be relatively frequent and sufficiently distinct from other similar activities. Relativized NPs do not meet such a requirement. 27

The adverbial reading is possible for these constructions under certain intonation patterns, although it is highly marked. 28

Kornfilt (2003) suggests that nouns which undergo head incorporation in Turkish are also predicative categories. 29

Saito (2002) also claims that nouns that assign theta roles in Japanese light verb constructions have to be predicative in nature. 30

Note that this implies that the light verb functions merely as a denominalizer. I thank Jim Huang (p.c.) for this suggestion. 31 Note that both in (98b) and (99b) it can be assumed that the light verb et- and its complement muayene undergo a real case of head incorporation in the lexicon and then the complex verb

88


formed in the lexicon is inserted as V0 into the structure. The following illustrates such a structure where the noun hasta is referential in (98b): (98b’) FP

6 F’

doktor

ei FP F

6 Complex Predicate à

F’ ei VP F

6

V’ ei NP V0 à Lexical incorporation hasta ei N V Muayene et-

This structure raises the question of whether lexical head incorporation can also be assumed for immediately preverbal bare nouns which have been analyzed as cases of pseudoincorporation. Such a possibility is not available, as seen in the ungrammaticality of example (iii) below. As seen in (ii) it is possible to use a wh question for pseudo-incorporated bare NPs. If this NP was lexically incorporated, example (iii) would be expected to be grammatical, as ar sok- would be lexically formed and would act as V0, whereas the question word ne “what” would occupy the NP position sister to V0. However, this option is not possible. Therefore, we argue that there is no head-incorporation in the case of the immediately preverbal bare nouns discussed in Section 2.1: (i) Ali-yi ar soktu. (ii) Ali-yi ne soktu? (iii) *Ali-yi ne ar soktu? Ali-acc bee stung Ali-acc what stung Ali-acc what bee stung “Ali got bee stung.” “What-stung did Ali get?” 32

Enç (1991) discusses the notion that overt accusative case denotes specificity in Turkish. In parallel to Enç (1991), Aygen (1999, 2002b) and Kornfilt (2003) argue that all instances of morphological case (accusative, genitive, ablative, locative and dative) in Turkish denote specificity. 33

Note that nominative is zero marked in Turkish.

34

Note that such an analysis of case is very parallel to de Hoop (1996). We will discuss de Hoop (1996) in Chapter III, when we return to the question of how bare NPs in pseudo incorporation cases are associated with theta roles. 35

Such a proposal may not be very exceptional considering the historical correlation between case and referentiality. That is, development of determiners in languages follows the deterioration of the case system (Osawa 1998, 2000).


89

36

This analysis is in a sense parallel to the wh-movement typology proposed by Tsai (1994), where he explains the presence or absence of overt wh-movement with respect to the position the Q operator is merged. For English he claims that the Q operator is merged at X0 level, so there is a word-internal operator-variable binding. For Chinese, on the other hand, he claims, the Q operator is merged at CP or at a higher category. 37

This is parallel to Dayal (2002), who claims that the unmarked choice for type-shifting operations are ∩ and ι ({∩, ι} > ∃), (not just ∩ as claimed by Chierchia (1998) ({∩ > ι, ∃})). 38

The similarity between immediately preverbal bare nouns and non-specific indefinites has also been observed in the literature and it has been claimed that non-specific indefinites can also be analyzed as a case of head incorporation on a par with immediately preverbal bare nouns (Hankamer 1971, Aissen 1974, Kornfilt 1994). The main motivation behind such an analysis is the fact that both the non-specific indefinite and immediately preverbal nouns are subject to the same movement constraints. They cannot be scrambled away from the verb: (i) a. *Bir kitap Ali oku-du. (indefinite non-specific) one book Ali read-past “Ali read a book.” b. *Kitap Ali oku-du. (incorporation) book Ali read-past “Ali did book-reading.” However, as shown above bare nouns are not head categories but they are full phrasal NPs. Therefore, head-incorporation analysis cannot be compatible with these constructions. 39

See Nakanishi (2003) for the semantics of this proposal.

40

Tsou is another language where quantificational adverbs related to the object measure the event from a VP adjoined position. Note that this type of measuring out is not possible with non-case marked nouns, but only with the marker no, which is not a true case marker (M. Chang: p.c.): (i) m-o [tma-teyui no/*ta[ti tposu]] 'opasuya. AV-Rea write-three no/obl.defbook Nom- Pasuya “Pasuya did book writing for three times.” Meaning: Pasuya wrote three books. (M. Chang: p.c.) 41

Note that van Geenhoven (1998) also argues for atomicity-denoting modifiers for West Greenlandic bare nouns. 42 Note that such an analysis of bir is in line with Tura-Sansa (1973) that the indefinite noun phrases marked with bir have to be interpreted as singular. 43

Zidani-Ero lu (1997b) also maintains that presuppositionality in terms of Diesing (1992) is identical to partitivity. 44

Note that arguing that bir is an existential quantifier, which exhibits ambiguity in relation to distributivity denoting quantifiers in Turkish is not sufficiently explanatory. Existential quantifiers such as some in other languages are not subject to such restrictions. They can yield ambiguity in relation to both distributivity and group denoting quantifiers.

90

45


I thank Veneeta Dayal (p.c.) for this proposal.

46

Note that the syntactic implication of this proposal is that non-specific indefinites and specific indefinites are merged to the structure at different positions, non-specific indefinites are merged as complements of the main verb, whereas specific indefinites are merged higher. This account is in parallel to the proposals by Zidani-Ero lu (1997b), Aygen (1999, 2002), Kelepir (2001). 47

It is a well-known fact that NPs with strong quantifiers have to occur with case-markers in Turkish (Kelepir 2001). Deletion of case with strong quantifiers yields ungrammaticality: (i) a. Ali bütün çocuk-lar-*( ) gördü. Ali all child-pl-acc saw “Ali saw all the children.” b. Ali ço u/her çocu -*(u) tan yor. Ali most/every child-acc knows “Ali knows most/every child(ren).” It is generally accepted that quantified NPs are of ,t> type cross-linguistically (Partee 1986). If case is a type-shifter that yields arguments of referential individuals or kinds, then the question is how it is possible for case to co-occur with quantifiers in Turkish, since this is an obvious type-mismatch. Enç (1991) argues that strong quantifiers in Turkish are also specific as they target contextually relevant entities, therefore, they are compatible with case. We will leave the resolution of this type-mismatch to a further research but highlight some of the properties of quantifiers which might pave the way for futher investigation. First, all quantifiers in Turkish are prenominal, just like bir and demonstratives which we have claimed to be modifiers in the discussions above. This is against the strict head-final structure of Turkish and it poses a challenge to considering quantifiers to be functional heads as often suggested for quantifiers in English. Second, except for the case given in example (38), there is no scope ambiguity in Turkish (Aygen 1999, 2002b, Kelepir 2001): (ii) a. Bir kitabço u insan okudu. one book-acc most person read “Most people read a specific book.” b. Ço u insan bir kitabokudu. most person one book-acc read “Most people read a specific book.” Third, except for the quantifier her “every”, quantifiers in Turkish do not impose distributivity or collectivity: (iii) a. Ço u çocuk/bütün çocuk-lar para toplay p birlikte bir kitap ald . (Collective) most child /all child-pl money collecting together one book bought “Most/All children bought a book together collecting money.” b. Ço u çocuk / bütün çocuk-lar ayr zamanlar-da bir kitap ald . (Distr) most child / all child-pl different times-loc one book bought “Most/All children bought a book in different times.” (iv) Her çocuk bir kitap ald . (Distr/*Collective) every child one book bought “Every child bought a book each.” Also the quantificational force of quantifiers in Turkish is controversial. Consider how Turkish quantifiers behave in the following contexts:


91

Context: There are 50 students in the department. 25 of them are taking tutorials but at least 20 of them have complained about the tutorials, as they are not happy with them. We try to improve the tutorials by listening to the complaints of the students who are actually taking them. Then a few weeks later someone can ask implying just the students who take tutorials: A. Ço u ö renci hala mutsuz mu? most student still unhappy Q “Are most students still unhappy?” B. Ço u ö renci-yle konu -tu-nuz mu? most student-with speak-past-2pl Q “Have you spoken with most students?” (vi) Context: There are 50 students and 25 of them are taking tutorials and 25 of them are unhappy with the tutorials. The answer to the following question is always NO in Turkish, since you always think of the relevant subset. renci-ler-in yar mutlu mu? student-pl-gen half happy Q “Are half of the students happy?” As illustrated by (v) and (vi) Turkish quantifiers always refer to the relevant subset, regardless of how much in advance the discourse was established. Native speakers of English, on the other hand, can allow such a domain restriction only in the immediate discourse. This challenges the quantificational force of quantifiers in Turkish. Then the question is whether or not Turkish has true quantifiers? Brisson (1997) proposes that all in English is not a true quantifier but is a modifier which operates on covers of definite plurals. This leads to a good fit interpretation. Consider: (vii) a. The children are dancing. b. All the children are dancing Sentence (viia) can be true even if some of the children are dancing. However, (viib) can only be true when all the children which are contextually relevant are dancing. Thus, all requires a good fit. That is, it is only compatible with the covers I and J, which operate on definite plurals, given in (viii) below. (viia), on the other hand, can be compatible with all the covers below, as definite plurals allow pragmatic weakening: (viii) U= {a, b, c, d, s, t, {a,b}, {a, c}, {a, d}, {a, s}, {a, t}, {a,s,t}…..} the children= {a, b, c, d} I= {{a}, {b}, {c}, {d}, {s,t}} J={{a, b, c, d}, {s}, {t}} K= {{a}, {b}, {c, d, s,t}} L= {{a, b}, {c, d, s,t}} M = {{a, b, c}, {d,s,t}} N = {{a}, {b}, {c}, {d,s,t}} Given that Turkish quantifiers always choose the contextually relevant set, it might be claimed that they are not true quantifiers but also operate on definite plurals. It can be assumed that each type of strong quantifier in Turkish is compatible with a certain type of cover. For example, bütün “all” is a good fit like English all and is compatible with the covers I and J above, whereas her “every” is an atomic good fit, which is only compatible with I. Ço u “most” is a majority fit and it is compatible with M, whereas baz “some” is a partial fit, which is compatible with K. Claiming that quantifiers in Turkish operate on definite plural sets would make case not only compatible with strong quantifiers, but also obligatory. This will (v)

92


solve the type-mismatch problem between case and quantifiers. However, a definite answer on this issue requires further investigation, which we will leave for a future study.

CHAPTER 3 CASE, REFERENTIALITY AND NON-CONFIGURATIONALITY

As discussed in Chapter I and Chapter II, in the literature there are two conditions which have been proposed for a predicative NP to become a syntactic argument: (i) referentiality assignment by a functional category to type-shift an NP, and (ii) case assignment for visibility. Thus, an NP must be checked for case and referentiality to become an argument. In Chapter II, we showed that Turkish lacks determiners which can head a DP projection; thus, Turkish does not have a DP as a functional category associated with referentiality assignment. We proposed that in the absence of determiners, case-assignment is responsible in Turkish for type-shifting predicative NPs into syntactic arguments. Thus, case-assignment also encodes referentiality assignment. This implies that languages may vary with respect to the functional categories they have associated with case and referentiality. In languages like Italian, DPs are responsible for referentiality assignment to NPs (Longobardi 1994, Chierchia 1998), whereas case is assigned to NPs by functional categories such as T or v (Chomsky 1995). In Turkish, on the other hand, there is no separate functional category associated with referentiality, and referentiality is instead encoded in case-assignment. This implies that the functional categories responsible for case-assignment in Turkish are also responsible for referentiality assignment. In Turkish, then, in order to become an argument, an NP has to be merged at a syntactic position where case-assignment can take place. When NPs are merged at a position where case is available, they can gain full argument status by checking both case and referentiality features. If NPs are merged at a syntactic position where case is not available, they will not become arguments, but simply retain their predicate status. We have argued that this is the case observed in pseudo-incorporation, idioms and light verb constructions in Turkish. NPs which fail to check case retain their predicative status and form complex predicates along with verb heads. Thus, in Chapter II, we proposed the following structure as the main phrase structure of Turkish:


94 (1)

FP wo subject NP F’ wo FP F wo object NP F’ wo Comp Pred à VP F wo V’ wo NP V0

Functional Domain [+case, +referentiality]

[+case, +referentiality] Lexical Domain

The structure above has two distinct domains: lexical and functional. The lexical domain is where complex predicate formation takes place. In this domain there are no functional categories available, but only lexical categories, which are predicative in nature, are present. In the functional domain, on the other hand, features such as case and referentiality are available, being provided by certain functional projections. Argumenthood can only be established in this domain. That is, an NP can only be interpreted as an object or a subject within this functional domain. Categories within the lexical VP domain are interpreted as part of the predicate. The structure in (1) has certain implications for argument structure. The lexical domain is separated from the functional domain where arguments are introduced by certain functional categories (FPs). This implies that verbs are disassociated from their arguments, and argument introduction is mediated solely by functional categories. Such a representation argues against argument structure models, which assume that lexical entries, i.e. verbs, contain information for the projection of arguments in syntax, such as Baker (1988), Levin and Rappaport (1995), Pesetsky (1995). In this chapter our main focus will be the functional categories (FPs) which assign case and referentiality in Turkish that are given in the structure in (1). We will investigate their role in the establishment of argumenthood and theta role assignment. We will first discuss transitives, unergatives, unaccusatives, causatives, and passives in relation to the structure in (1). Then we will return to the problem that we introduced in Chapter II with respect to how pseudo-incorporated NPs acquire their theta-roles, even though they do not act as syntactic arguments.

CASE, REFERENTIALITY AND NON-CONFIGURATIONALITY

95

As shown in (1), we will mainly argue for a Neo-Davidsonian model for Turkish, where verbs do not have a fixed argument structure, but rather arguments are introduced by theta-role introducing functional categories. We will claim that the FPs in (1) are such functional categories and that theta role assignment is done by checking the case feature on these heads. This implies that unlike in English, in Turkish theta role assignment and case assignment are mediated via the same functional categories, that is, case assignment is done in theta positions. Such a claim immediately raises questions as for the role of TP and vP in relation to case assignment in Turkish, since these are assumed to be the main functional categories responsible for case assignment in languages like English. We will propose that TPs and vPs do not play a role in case assignment in Turkish. Structural case assignment is mediated in theta positions. This proposal will have certain implications for case-driven Agree with higher functional categories observed in languages like English. We will argue that there is no case-driven Agree in Turkish of the type seen in English. We will futher propose that presence or absence of case-driven Agree have immediate implications for the phrase structure in terms of configurationality. We will argue that languages with case-driven Agree exhibit a configurational phrase structure, whereas the ones without case-driven Agree are nonconfigurational. Based on this distinction we will present a language typology at the end of this chapter, which will introduce a comparison of Turkish, Japanese, Hungarian, English and Chinese with respect to the degree of configurationality they exhibit. 1. Argument Structure in Turkish 1.1 The Neo-Davidsonian Model Argument structure is the syntactic configuration projected by lexical items. Theories of argument projection generally assume that lexical items contain some syntactic information that mediates how arguments are projected in Dstructure (Baker 1988, Levin and Rappaport 1994, Pesetsky 1995, among others). Recent models of argument structure adopting a constructionalist view of the Lexicon-Syntax interface (Lin 2001, Borer 2004), on the other hand, have taken a different stand and proposed a total disassociation between lexicon and syntax by arguing that lexical items do not bear any syntactic information with respect to the arguments they can take in syntax.1 Davidson (1967), drawing a clear distinction between arguments and adjuncts, proposed that predicates like buy are three-place predicates, where

96


subjects and objects correspond to the arguments of the main predicates, while adjuncts are introduced by secondary predication: (2) We bought your slippers in Marrakesh (2’) ∃e [buy (your slippers)(we)(e) & in (Marrakesh)(e)] λxλyλe[buy(x)(y)(e)] Castaneda (1967) and Parsons (1993), on the other hand, criticize Davidson (1967) and argue that predicates like buy only have one argument namely the event argument and agents and themes are also introduced by secondary predication on a par with the case of adjuncts. This is known to be the Neo-Davidsonian model: (2”) ∃e [buy (e) & Agent (we)(e) & Theme (your slippers) (e) & in (Marrakesh)(e)] λxλyλe[buy (e) & Theme(x)(e) & Agent (y)(e)] The first application of this semantic model of event structure to syntax came in relation to external argument. Marantz (1984) proposed that the external argument is not an argument of the verb, as only internal arguments can trigger special interpretations of the verb as opposed to external arguments, as illustrated in the case of idiomatic expressions. Following Marantz’s proposal, Kratzer (1994) makes a syntactic proposal, which relies heavily on the semantics of event structure. She argues that verbs like buy are predicates without external arguments. Their external arguments are associated with the event by the Neo-Davidsonian method. Thus, she assumes that predicates like buy are two-place predicates, taking an event argument and an internal argument but no external argument. With respect to the syntactic realization of (3), Kratzer proposes that external arguments are introduced into the structure by a functional head (Voice), whereas internal arguments are projected from the argument structure of the verb. Thus, the external argument is disassociated from the argument structure of the verb: (3) λxλe[buy(x)(e)] & λyλe[Agent(y)(e)] Lin (2001), on the other hand, takes a step further and shows that all arguments in Chinese, whether internal or external, should be disassociated from the argument structure of the verb and be licensed by overt or covert light verbs, which act as eventuality predicates. Thus, he proposes a purely Neo-


97

Davidsonian model for Chinese. In Chinese, then, verbs are not specified for their internal or external arguments in the lexicon but only have the event argument. Lin (2001) introduces the notion of unselectiveness of subject and object in Chinese, i.e., an active verb can freely take an agent, a location or a causer as the surface subject, also a theme/patient, an instrument, a location, or a reason as the surface object, as illustrated by the Chinese verb kai “drive” in (4)-(5): (4)

(5)

a. Laowang kai-le yi-liang BMW. (Agent) p.n. drive-Perf one-Cl BMW “Laowang drove a BMW.” b. Gaosu-gonglu-shang kai-zhe yi-liang BMW. (Location) express-way-on drive-Dur one BMW “There is a BMW [running] on the expressway.” c. Zhe-liang BMW kai-de wo quan-shen mao-han. (Causer) this-Cl BMW drive-Ext I whole-body sweat “Driving this BMW makes me sweat all over my body.” a. kai na-liang BMW (Theme/patient) drive that-Cl BMW “to drive that BMW” b. kai zuo-shou (Instrument) drive left-hand “to drive with the left hand” c. kai zuo-bian (Location) drive left-side “to drive along the left-hand side” d. kai hao-wan (Reason) drive fun “to drive for fun” (Lin 2001: 4)

Borer (2004) has recently made a similar proposal, which she argues to hold cross-linguistically. In parallel to Lin (2001), she also proposes that the argument structure of a verb is licensed by the functional structure, which is interpreted as the event structure. Thus, she also proposes a purely Neo-Davidsonian model for argument structure cross-linguistically. Her starting point is what she calls variable-behavior verbs, that is, intransitives that show a variable-behavior with respect to being unaccusative or unergative. She shows that the unaccusative/unergative alternation is not stable and is lexical-entry dependent as illustrated in the Italian case given in (6):

98


(6) a. Gianni ha corso. “Gianni has run.” b. Gianni e corso a casa. “Gianni is run to home.”

(unergative) (unaccusative)

Borer (2004) argues that variable behavior verbs in all their manifestations are a single lexical item. The structure within which they are embedded and the interpretation of that structure are not derived from properties of the specification they have in the lexicon. But it is rather in line with general properties of functional structure and its mapping onto the interpretational component. For example, a variable behavior verb is interpreted as unaccusative, if the sole argument is base-generated at a functional projection that is associated with objects in transitive constructions. The presence of an object position will delimit the event and yield a telic interpretation that is typically associated with unaccusatives. However, absence of such a functional projection will yield an unergative interpretation. Thus, she offers a model where the projection of arguments is entirely independent of any lexical information. This implies that in addition to external arguments, internal arguments should also be severed from the lexical predicate. She argues that different instantiations of a particular stem such as drop (droptrans; dropunacc.; dropunerg.; droppedAdj; droppableAdj; dropnoun) will be easily accounted for if the projection of arguments is entirely independent of any lexical information and instead depends on the presence or absence of the functional categories which introduce them. Intransitive verbs in Turkish also exhibit variable behavior; that is, they can be associated with different argument structures.2 The verb ko - “run,” which typically behaves as an unergative verb, can take an accusative object: (7) a. Ali yol-da ko uyor. (unergative) Ali road-loc running “Ali is running on the road.” b. Ali yol-u ko -tu. (transitive) Ali road-acc ran “Ali ran the road.” c. Ali üç saat-tir/*üç saat-te yol-da ko uyor. Ali 3 hour-for/3 hour-loc road-loc running “Ali is running on the road for/*in 3 hours.”


99

d. Ali yol-u üç saat-te/üç saat-tir ko -tu. Ali road-acc 3 hour-loc/3 hour-for/ ran “Ali ran the road in/*for three hours.” Example (7a) illustrates an unergative reading of ko -, whereas (7b) is an example of a transitive ko -, which is created by projecting an object argument. This shows that a verb like ko - does not have a fixed number of arguments specified in the lexicon. The two forms also exhibit different aspectual properties as illustrated in (7c) and (7d). It is known that presence of objects delimits events in unaccusatives and transitives and leads to a telic interpretation (Dowty 1979, Tenny 1994, among others). This is the case in (7c). As opposed to (7d), where there is no object and an atelic interpretation arises, which is typically associated with unergatives. (8) a. Ali çocu -u it-ti ve çocuk dü -tü. (unaccusative) Ali child-acc push-past and child fall-past “Ali pushed the child and the child fell.” b. Çocuk kas tl olarak dü -tü. (unergative) child intentional as fall-past “The child fell intentionally.” c. Gösteri-de kas tl olarak dü -ül-dü. (impersonal passive) show-loc intentional as fall-pass-past “A falling intentionally took place at the show.” Dü - “fall” is typically an unaccusative verb. This is illustrated in (8a). However, the same verb can be interpreted as an unergative given an intentionality denoting adverb, which forces an agentive reading for the only argument of the verb as in (8b). Moreover, the availability of an unergative reading for this verb is furtherly supported by the impersonal passive sentence given in (8c). Impersonal passives are only compatible with unergatives in Turkish. Thus (8c) implies that the verb dü - can be associated with an unergative structure. Both Marantz (1984) and Kratzer (1994) base their claims for severing the external argument from the verb on the fact that idioms in English are formed mainly with internal arguments to the exclusion of the external argument. Idioms in Turkish, however, do include external arguments to the exclusion of internal ones:


100 (9)

Ali-yi Allah çarp-t . Ali-acc god strike-past “Ali got cursed.”

The presence of idioms with external arguments in Turkish argues for a structure where internal arguments should also be severed from the argument structure of verbs. Examples (7)-(9) argue for the compatibility of the Neo-Davidsonian model with Turkish. Based on the evidence provided by variable behavior verbs and idioms, we propose that in Turkish verbs should be deprived of arguments in their argument structure (except the event argument). They should not have any information regarding their syntactic arguments specified in the lexicon. This implies that on a par with Lin (2001) and Borer (2004) syntactic arguments such as subjects and objects should be introduced by functional categories. This takes us back to the phrase structure we proposed in Example (1) above, where arguments are introduced with higher functional categories above the lexical VP domain. In the following, we will discuss derivations of transitive and intransitive sentences as well as pseudo incorporation cases within such a structure in relation to case and theta role assignment. 1.2 Case-checking and Theta Role assignment in Turkish The section above has introduced a Neo-Davidsonian model for Turkish, where both internal and external arguments are severed from the argument structure of the verb. Such a structure overlaps with the structure we have introduced in Chapter II, repeated in example (1) above, which we motivated based on the evidence from the case of immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish. The structure in example (1) is split into two domains. The lexical VP domain does not include any of the verb’s arguments but simply introduces the predicate of the event, whereas the functional domain above the VP introduces the arguments. In the following we will discuss how transitive and intransitive constructions are derived in such a structure. Our focus will be case checking and theta role assignment in relation to the establishment of argumenthood. Then we will discuss the case of immediately preverbal bare nouns in light verb constructions and pseudo incorporation. 1.2.1 Transitive and Intransitive Constructions in Turkish. Example (10) below illustrates a typical transitive construction in Turkish with an agentive subject and a theme object:


101

(10) a. Çocuk kitaboku-du. child book-acc read-past “The child read the book.” b. ∃e[read (e) & Theme (book) (e) & Agent (child) (e)] Within the Neo-Davidsonian model, such a sentence is represented as (10b). In (10b) the verb read has only the event argument in its argument structure, whereas both the theme and the agent are introduced via secondary predication. Representing the formula in (10b) syntactically gives us the following structure in (11): (11)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo readi MERGE NP àsubject Ag’ child-nomwo ThemeP Ag [+Case, +Ref] wo ti MERGE NP àobject Theme’ book-accwo VP Theme [+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo V ti As seen in (11) the lexical domain VP only contains the verb itself, which acts as the predicate introducing the event. Subjects and objects are introduced by independent functional categories, which introduce certain theta roles. Note that for ease of reference we name each functional projection for the theta role it introduces, hence Agent Phrase, Theme Phrase. The association of the lexical verb with syntactic arguments that the higher functional categories introduce is achieved by verb movement. The verb undergoes head movement into the head position of the relevant functional

102


categories and picks up its arguments. This is established via event identification à la Kratzer (1994). When the structure in (11) is compared to (1) above, it is seen that the functional heads also bear the two crucial features for argumenthood, namely, case and referentiality. As the discussion in Chapter II shows, there is no motivation to argue for a DP in Turkish which would type-shift predicate NPs into arguments. We have proposed that in Turkish case-assignment also encodes referentiality assignment, thus, type-shifting takes place via casechecking. This implies that whatever category assigns case will also assign referentiality. What we assume here is that in the absence of DPs all NPs in Turkish are merged into the syntactic structure as predicative NPs. If case assignment is available in the position that the NP is merged, it will be typeshifted into an argument. Otherwise, it will retain its predicative status. We argue that merging a predicative NP into the Spec of theta role introducing functional heads like AgentP or ThemeP will yield arguments by type-shifting the predicative NP via the assignment of case and referentiality features encoded on the same functional head. As case-assignment encodes referentiality-assignment, the two features have to be assigned by the same functional head. Note that in relation to visibility, checking off the case feature on these heads makes NPs visible for theta role assignment. Thus, NPs merged at Spec positions of theta role introducing functional heads will be interpreted as bearing the theta role specified by the functional head. Going back to (11) above, merging of the NP book into [Spec, ThemeP] will immediately typeshift it into an object argument as it will check off case and referentiality features. The subject argument, on the other hand, will be established by merging the NP child to [Spec, AgentP], which will check the case and referentiality features. Case-checking will also satisfy the visibility condition, causing NPs to be associated with the specific theta roles associated with each functional head. Such a mechanism of case and referentiality checking implies that argumenthood for NPs in Turkish is established in their theta positions, as both case and referentiality features are available in theta positions. This has certain implications for case-driven Agree in Turkish. As both case and referentiality are provided in theta positions, NPs will not have any motivation to establish Agree relations with higher functional categories such as TP and vP for case reasons. This is a crucial difference between languages like Turkish and English. We will return to this issue in Section 4 below. In summary, the derivation of a transitive sentence takes place via merging NPs into the Spec positions of theta-role introducing functional heads, into which the verb will move to pick up NPs as its arguments. In the absence


103

of a DP projection, NPs introduced into the Spec positions of functional heads will always be predicative. When they are case assigned by the functional head they are not only type-shifted into referential arguments but also gain full syntactic argument status in their theta positions. Example (12), on the other hand, illustrates an unergative intransitive construction in Turkish. The verb ko - in (12a) only requires a subject, which bears an agent theta role. (12b) represents how it is interpreted semantically: (12) a. Çocuk ko -tu. (unergative) child run-past “The child ran.” b. ∃e[run (e) & Agent (child) (e)] In the syntactic model we are assuming here arguments are introduced by functional categories. As the sole argument of an unergative construction is an agent, we propose the following structure in (13), which only includes an AgentP: (13)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo rani MERGE NP àsubject Ag’ child-nomwo Complex Predicate à VP Ag[+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo V ti The verb, then, will undergo head raising to the Agent head and pick up the agent as its sole syntactic argument. Again as in the case of transitives, the NP, which will be interpreted as the agent, is merged at [Spec, AgentP] as a predicate. But it will check off the case and referentiality features in this position. Thus, it will type-shift into an argument. Also note that case-checking will ensure association of the NP with the Agent theta role.


104

As discussed above it is possible to derive transitive sentences from unergative verbs by projecting a syntactic object: (14)

Çocuk yol-u ko -tu . child road-acc run-past “The child ran the road.”

(transitive)

Example (14) is totally on a par with transitive constructions. The only difference between (12) and (14) is that there is a theme, acting as the object. As arguments are introduced via functional heads, we assume that in the syntactic representation of (14) a ThemeP is projected introducing the theme argument: (15)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo rani MERGE NPà subject Ag’ child-nomwo ThemeP Ag[+Case, +Ref] wo ti MERGE NPàobject Theme’ road-accwo Complex Predicate à VP Theme[+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo V ti As seen in (15) above by projecting a ThemeP the verb ko -, which is typically assumed to be an unergative verb, can very easily form a transitive construction. Thus the variable behavior of such verbs is explained by means of theta role introducing functional categories available in the structure. Example (16) below illustrates an unaccusative construction in Turkish. The sole argument of the verb is a theme:


105

(16) a. Domates (bahçe-de) yeti -ti. (unaccusative) tomato (garden-loc) grow-past “The tomato grew in the garden.” b. ∃e[grow (e) & Theme (tomato) (e)] Syntactically the sentence in (16) is represented as the following: (17)

TP wo T’ wo ThemeP T [+EPP] wo growi MERGE àtomato-nom Theme’ wo Complex Predicate àVP Theme [+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo V ti

In the structure above, the sole argument of the verb is a theme object introduced by the ThemeP. Head movement of the lexical verb into Theme head will enable the event identification of the theme NP with the event that the verb denotes. Case and referentiality checking by the predicative theme NP, on the other hand, will establish the argument status of the theme NP. As seen in the discussion of (8) above, which is repeated as (18) below, verbs that seem to act as unaccusatives also exhibit variable behavior. Thus, they can be associated with different argument structures: (18) a. Ali çocu -u it-ti ve çocuk dü -tü. (unaccusative) Ali child-acc push-past and child fall-past “Ali pushed the child and the child fell.” b. Çocuk kas tl olarak dü -tü. (unergative) child intentional as fall-past “The child fell intentionally.” c. Gösteri-de kas tl olarak dü -ül-dü. (impersonal passive) show-loc intentional as fall-pass-past “A falling intentionally took place at the show.”


106

As seen in (18) above the verb dü -, which is typically assumed to be an unaccusative can act as an unergative as in (18b) and undergo impersonal passivization as in (18c). This implies that in (18a) the NP çocuk is interpreted as a theme, whereas it is interpreted as an agent in (18b). This problem can also be accounted for based on which theta-role introducing functional projections are available in the structure: (19)

a.

TP Unaccusative wo T’ wo ThemeP T [+EPP] wo falli MERGE NPàchild-nom Theme’ wo Complex Predicate àVP Theme[+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo V ti b.

TP Unergative wo T’ wo AgentP T [+EPP] wo falli MERGE NP àchild-nom Agent’ wo Complex Predicate à VP Agent [+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo V ti In example (19a) the sole argument of the verb is introduced by a ThemeP, thus, when the merged NP checks off the case feature it is interpreted


107

as the theme, yielding an unaccusative construction. However, when the NP is merged into the Spec of AgentP, it is associated with Agent role via casechecking, therefore the sentence is interpreted as an unergative construction as in (19b). Thus, based on the type of functional categories available in the structure, the same verb can be interpreted either as an unergative or an unaccusative. This explains the variable behavior of such verbs. To summarize, the discussion above has shown that in parallel to Borer (2004) variable behavior of intransitive verbs can be accounted for if we assume a model where arguments are introduced solely by functional projections, rather than being specified in the lexicon. 1.2.2 Immediately Preverbal Bare Nouns in Turkish. In Chapter II we have introduced the notion that immediately preverbal bare nouns in Turkish are full syntactic NPs, yet do not bear argument status. They are merged as the complement of lexical verb heads. That is, they are within the lexical domain represented in the structure in example (1) above. In the following, we will discuss the properties of two types of bare noun constructions in Turkish, namely light verb constructions and pseudo incorporation cases in relation to the checking of case and referentiality features. Let us start with the case of pseudo-incorporation. In Chapter II we have shown that bare NPs in pseudo-incorporation cases are introduced as sisters of lexical verb heads. Since this is a position where case is not available, they cannot be type-shifted into arguments; thus, they form complex predicates along with the verb heads. Assuming that case-assignment type-shifts predicative NPs into arguments in Turkish, we have claimed that NPs in pseudo incorporation cases, being in a non-case position do not function as syntactic arguments. Thus they cannot be targeted by operations like passivization, which are applicable only to syntactic arguments. We illustrated this situation with the following example in Chapter II: (20) a. Ali oda-da kitap okudu. Ali room-loc book read “Ali did book reading in the room.” b. Oda-da kitap oku-n-du. room-loc book read-pass-past “Book-reading happened in the room.” “*The book was read in the room.”


108

Example (20a) illustrates pseudo incorporation of themes. As seen in (20b) passivization of (20a) cannot be interpreted as an instance of personal passive. It is interpreted as a case of impersonal passive. It is known that impersonal passives in Turkish are only allowed with unergative verbs. Thus, the unavailability of personal passive reading for (20b) implies that pseudo incorporation of themes acts on a par with unergative constructions. Given the non-argument status of the pseudo-incorporated NP, this is expected. Thus, the pseudo-incorporated theme does not behave like a syntactic argument. Assuming that the structure in (20a) is parallel to unergatives which lack an object position, it is possible to claim that the functional projection which is responsible for introducing the theme argument is not projected when the pseudo-incorporation of a theme takes place. In other words, theme pseudo incorporation truly detransitivizes the structure. Thus the tree in (21) can be introduced as a representation of (20a): (21)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo MERGE NPàsubject Ag’ Ali-nomwo Complex Predicate àVP Ag[+Case, +Ref] wo V’ wo NP V book read

Such a structure for (20a) would lead to two possibilities in the case of theme incorporation. First, this will make the theme incorporation structure totally identical with the unergatives as illustrated in (20) above, hence it will be expected for theme incorporation cases to exhibit same properties as unergatives. Second, just as in the case of unergatives, it should be possible to insert an accusative object doubling the incorporated theme by projecting ThemeP. Now we will check each possibility in turn and see whether the representation in (21) is justifiable for pseudo incorporation of themes. Let us first assume that pseudo incorporation of themes are on a par with unergatives. As shown in (20) pseudo incorporation of themes yields


109

impersonal passives under passivization as unergatives. However, they yield different results under causativization, as we have seen in Chapter II. When an unergative is causativized in Turkish, the agent always gets marked for accusative case as illustrated in (22b). However, in the case of a transitive structure, when an accusative marked object is present as in (23a), causativization leads to the dative marking of the agent, but not accusative, as seen in (23b). This is due to the double-case constraint, which does not allow presence of the same case morphology more than once within the same clause (Aissen 1974, Zimmer 1976, Taylan 1979, 1984, Göksel 1993, among others among others). (22) a. Ali ko -tu. Ali run-past “Ali ran.” b. Ay e Ali-yi ko -tur-du. Ay e Ali-acc run-cause-past “Ay e made Ali ran.” (23) a. Ali bal tuttu. Ali fish-acc caught “Ali caught the fish.” b. Ay e Ali-ye/*yi bal tut-tur-du. Ay e Ali-dat/acc fish-acc catch-cause-past “Ay e made Ali caught the fish.” Now let us turn to how pseudo-incorporation of themes behaves under causativization. If theme incorporation cases illustrated in (24a) below are truly on a par with unergatives, we will expect the agent to be marked for accusative as in the case of (22b). However, this is not the case. Causativized theme incorporation cases still require the agent to be marked for dative but not accusative, as shown in (24b). (24) a. Ali bal k tut-tu. (pseudo-incorporation) Ali fish catch-past “Ali went fishing.” b. Ay e Ali-ye/*yi bal k tut-tur-du. Ay e Ali-dat/acc fish catch-cause-past “Ay e made Ali go fishing.”

110


This comes from the double-case restriction. This implies that the pseudo-incorporated theme is still associated with the accusative case, even though accusative is not morphologically realized. Therefore, it does not allow introduction of another accusative marked argument into the structure. This introduces a puzzle for the analysis we proposed in Chapter II. In Chapter II, based on passivization, we claimed that pseudo-incorporated themes form a complex predicate with the verb, thus, they are not realized as syntactic arguments. However, causatives argue for the opposite that pseudoincorporated themes are indeed associated with the accusative case normally available for the object argument. Thus, association of pseudo-incorporated themes with accusative case implies that pseudo incorporation of themes cannot totally be on a par with unergatives illustrated in (21) above. Now let us return to the second possibility, which also arises from analyzing pseudo incorporation of themes as totally on a par with unergatives. In Chapter II, we have claimed that the pseudo-incorporated theme is a part of the complex predicate, but is not the object argument. If (21) is the right structure for pseudo incorporation of themes, then it should be possible to introduce an object into the structure, just as in the case of unergatives illustrated by the contrast in (13) and (15) above. Assuming an unergative structure for pseudo incorporation of themes makes it possible to double the theme argument by projecting a Theme Phrase, which can host a true referential object, as illustrated in (25) below:


111

(25)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo rani MERGE NPàsubject Ag’ wo ThemeP Ag [+Case, +Ref] wo ti MERGE NPàobject Theme’ wo Complex Predicate àVP Theme[+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ wo NP V

However, introduction of a referential object doubling the theme is strictly banned in Turkish. It leads to ungrammaticality as seen in (26): (26) a. Ali kitap okudu. (pseudo-incorporation of theme) Ali book read “Ali did book reading.” b. *Ali Romeo ve Juliet-i kitap okudu. (theme-doubling) Ali Romeo and Juliet-acc book read “Ali book-read Romeo and Juliet.” The grammaticality in (26) again implies that pseudo-incorporation of themes cannot be parallel to unergatives. As seen in (15) above, unergatives can be transitivized by the introduction of an object, however, this is not possible in (26). This is similar to the problem introduced by causativization of the theme incorporation discussed above. The ungrammaticality of (26) is due the association of the pseudo-incorporated theme with the case available for the object. This leaves no case available for a new argument, thus blocks the introduction of a true object. However, object doubling examples lead to the same puzzle. If pseudo-incorporated themes are not true arguments as shown in Chapter II, then we need to explain how they can be associated with the case and theta role reserved for true object arguments, and block the projection of an extra object. We also need to account for why pseudo incorporation of themes

112


behave identical to unergatives under passivization, but behave differently under causativization, blocking the introduction of an accusative marked object by a ThemeP. We will answer each of these questions in the following. Regarding causatives as shown in (24), accusative case is not available for another argument, unlike the causativization of purely unergative constructions. This argues for the availability of a ThemeP in the structure, which introduces the object case. That is, accusative case is available in pseudo incorporation of themes and is already assigned to some NP in (24a), and it is not possible to assign it to another NP under causativization. Based on the unavailability of accusative for other arguments in (24), we argue that in pseudo incorporation of themes ThemeP is available as a functional projection introducing accusative case. If it were totally absent, the agent in theme incorporation cases should be marked accusative under causativization, just like in the case of unergatives. Therefore, we take the causativization facts as an evidence for projecting a ThemeP. Then the question is why a true object cannot be introduced in the domain of this ThemeP in addition to the NP, which undergoes complex predicate formation via pseudo incorporation. In other words, if there is a ThemeP and if pseudo-incorporated NPs are in the domain of lexical VP, why isn’t it possible to have constructions like (26b)? As we discussed in detail in Chapter I, there are two conditions for a predicative NP to become an argument, namely the assignment of referentiality and case. Unless an NP is assigned both features, it will not be able to become an argument. As discussed above, in Turkish the same functional head is responsible for both case and referentiality assignment. We propose that pseudo incorporation cases result from the lack of the referentiality feature on theta role introducing functional heads. That is, in the absence of a referentiality feature on a theta role introducing functional head the two conditions on argumenthood are not met. Therefore, no NP can be introduced which can function as a true argument to the spec of that functional head. In the case of pseudo incorporation of themes, the Theme head lacks [+Referentiality] feature, but it bears [+case], namely the accusative case as attested by causative constructions: (27) a. Çocuk kitap oku-du. child book read-past “The child did book-reading.”


113

b.

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo ßnom MERGE NPàsubject Ag’ Çocuk -nomwo ThemeP Ag [+Case, +Ref] wo ßacc Theme’ wo Complex Predicate à VP Theme [+Case, -Ref] wo V’ ti wo NP V kitap okudu In the discussion of transitive structures in Turkish, we have claimed that verbs do not come from the lexicon specified for their arguments but they pick up their arguments via head raising into the head position of theta role introducing functional heads. As discussed in Chapter II, in pseudo incorporation, bare NPs form complex predicates along with the verb head. In the case of pseudo incorporation, what undergoes head movement to pick up arguments is not just the verb head but the V’, which is reanalyzed as a complex V0 head.3 This V’ consists of the complex predicate [NP+V]:


114 (28)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo kitap okudui MERGE àsubject Ag’ Çocuk –nomwo ßnom ThemeP Ag [+Case, +Ref] wo ti Theme’ wo ßacc Complex Predicate à VP Theme [+Case, -Ref] wo ti V’ ti wo NP V

In (28) the NP kitap “book” is merged as a sister to the lexical verb head. Since in this position case is not available it is not type-shifted into an argument but retains its predicate status. Thus it forms a complex predicate along with the verb. At this point the NP is not associated with any theta role. It is simply a predicate. Then verb movement takes place. The [NP+V] complex moves to the Theme head which only bears [+case] feature. As the Theme head lacks referentiality feature, it is not possible to insert a full NP into its Spec which would be realized as the object. However, the case feature on Theme head has to be checked, otherwise it will lead the structure to crash. Note that what undergoes head movement in pseudo-incorporation is the [NP+V] complex. In Chapter II, we have clearly shown that the NP in [NP+V] is an independent syntactic constituent. Therefore, we propose that this NP having the full NP status can check off the case feature on Theme head. As case checking is crucial for visibility and theta role assignment, when the NP in complex predicate checks off the case feature on the Theme head, it gets associated with the theme role. This is how the sentence is interpreted as an instance of pseudo incorporation of themes. Thus, case checking is achieved via head movement rather than merging an NP into the Spec position. Hence the NP, which originates as the sister of the lexical verb head, is associated with the case on Theme head and is interpreted as the pseudo-incorporated theme. Thus, it blocks the assigment of


115

accusative case to another argument in causatives as seen in (24b). As it does not check the referentiality feature but only the case feature, it cannot satisfy the two conditions on argumenthood, therefore under passivization the whole structure still behaves as if it is an unergative, which lacks an internal argument. However, since case is already checked, it behaves on a par with transitives under causativization. Thus, this analysis presents an answer to the puzzle of why pseudo incorporation of themes behaves identically to unergatives under passivization leading to impersonal passives, but behaves differently under causativization, blocking the introduction of an accusative marked object by projecting a ThemeP. Note that the analysis above proposes that the case feature on functional heads can be checked by head-movement rather than Merge XP. Although this is an innovation, similar accounts have been proposed regarding the checking of other features on functional heads via head movement. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) and Öztürk (1999, 2002a) independently argue that V-to-T raising, more specifically the pronominal agreement morphology on the verb head can check EPP feature. As bare nouns are full NPs syntactically, they can also play a role in feature checking on heads under head-movement. The contrast between true object arguments and pseudo-incorporated themes is due to the absence of a referentiality feature in pseudo-incorporation. When the theta role introducing functional head lacks the referentiality feature, it is not possible to project a true object argument. Assignment of only the case feature without referentiality is not sufficient to type-shift an NP into an argument. This type of case assignment is what yields pseudo incorporation cases. However, if referentiality is present along with the case feature on the functional head, then assignment of this type of case along with the referentiality feature acts as a type-shifter. This proposal is very close to the one made by de Hoop (1996). De Hoop (1996) argues that there are two types of structural case: weak and strong. She defines weak case as the default structural case licensed at D-structure. It is not related to specific theta roles, thus it is different from lexical or oblique case. She proposes that objects that bear weak case are interpreted as part of the predicate and that object incorporation can be conceived as the ultimate morphological realization of this interpretation. Strong case, on the other hand, differs from weak case in that it is licensed at S-structure. It is assigned to objects which behave as real arguments. She proposes that strong case functions as a type-shifter. She also discusses in Turkish from this perspective:


116

(29) a. Ali kitabokudu. (object NP) Ali book-acc read “Ali read the book.” b. Ali kitap okudu. (pseudo-incorporated NP) Ali book read “Ali did book reading.” She proposes that the overt accusative case assigned to the object in (29a) is an instance of strong case, whereas the one assigned to the bare noun in (29b) is a default weak case. The analysis we propose here elaborates on de Hoop’s strong vs. weak case account. We argue that what de Hoop calls strong case syntactically correlates to the case feature which is assigned along with referentiality feature. This type of case acts as a type-shifter. Weak case, on the other hand, consists of only the case feature without referentiality and it cannot type-shift predicates into arguments: (30)

Strong Case: Case with Referentiality Weak Case: Case without Referentiality

à type-shifter ànot a type-shifter

To summarize, pseudo-incorporation of themes is formed with weak case. Therefore, pseudo-incorporated themes cannot function as syntactic arguments. This causes such constructions to be interpreted on a par with unergatives under passivization. As case-assignment takes place in the absence of referentiality, they behave as transitives under causativization. Given the proposal above that pseudo-incorporated NPs in Turkish get associated with theta roles by checking off weak case on Theme heads, we need to discuss a structure observed in Chamorro. Chung and Ladusaw (2004) argue that Chamorro also exhibits pseudo incorporation. That is, the noun, which undergoes incorporation, is a full NP syntactically. If our analysis proposed for Turkish above is on the right track, then pseudo-incorporated NPs in Chamorro should also be checking weak case on ThemeP and thus be interpreted as themes. However, unlike Turkish in Chamorro, theme doubling is allowed as seen in (31): (31) Hami gai-ga énnao na ga lagu we wh-nom.agr.have-pet that L dog “We own that dog.” (lit: We pet-own that dog) (Chung & Ladusaw 2004:119)


117

If Chamorro functions like Turkish, then the pseudo-incorporated NP pet in (31) above should also be getting the theme interpretation by checking the weak case feature introduced by Theme head. Then, how is it possible to introduce the extra object the dog into the structure? There should be only one case feature which can be assigned by ThemeP. When pet checks off this feature there will not be another case left for an independent object argument. Then the only way to solve this puzzle is to interpret the extra object as an adjunct syntactically but not as a true argument. Even though their analysis does not really rely on case, Chung and Ladusaw (2004) also arrive at the conclusion that extra objects in Chamorro cannot be true arguments but they are syntactic adjuncts. Their evidence comes from agreement patterns, the extra object’s inaccessibility to wh-movement, its islandhood and its inability to be shared by conjoined verbs. We will illustrate only the agreement patterns exhibited by extra objects and refer the reader to Chung and Ladusaw (2004) for a detailed discussion of the other data which prove that the extra object is an adjunct: (32) a. Ma-baba i petta. [transitive] agr-open the door “They opened the door” (Chung and Ladusaw 2004:113) b. Man-gai-[famagu un] [pseudo incorporation: intransitive] agr-have-children “They have children.” (Chung and Ladusaw 2004:113) c. Man-gai-[ga ] ham nuskuantus ga lagu yan in-pepeksai siha. agr-have-pet “We have [intransitive]

we several dog several dogs and

and agr-raise.Prog them are raising them.”

(Chung and Ladusaw 2004:121) As seen above when pseudo incorporation takes place, the agreement realized on the verb is selected from the intransitive paradigm as in (32b), however, in the absence of pseudo incorporation, the agreement is from the transitive paradigm as in (32a). When the theme is doubled as in (32c), on the other hand, the agreement is again from the intransitive paradigm. Based on this, Chung and Ladusaw (2004) conclude that the extra object cannot be a true argument of the verb. Such a conclusion is obligatory under the proposal we have made above. If pseudo-incorporated NPs check weak case on theta role


118

introducing functional heads, then it is expected that no extra NP can be introduced into the structure as a syntactic argument. The only option to accommodate an extra NP is by introducing it as an adjunct as in the case of Chamorro.4 Now let us turn to the case of agent incorporation in Turkish, which is another instance of complex predicate formation in the type of [NP+V] introduced in Chapter II. Again our focus will be the non-argument status of bare nouns in these constructions and how they are interpreted as agents. In Chapter II, we have shown that similar to the case of theme incorporation, bare NPs in agent incorporation cases are merged as sisters to the lexical verb head within the complex predicate domain. In this position in the absence of case, they are not type-shifted into an argument but retain their predicative nature. Thus, they form a complex predicate with the lexical verb. (33)

Ay e-yi köpek ss r-d . Ay e-acc dog bite-past “Dog-biting happened to Ay e (=Ay e got dog-bitten)”

In Chapter II, we have shown that bare NPs in agent incorporation cannot function as syntactic arguments. Passivization facts as well as control structures provided evidence for this: (34)

a. Ali-yi [NPar ] soktu. Ali-acc bee stung “Ali got bee stung.” b. *Ali sok-ul-du. Ali sting-pass-past “Ali was bee stung.” c. *Ali-yi [PROi sorgula-mak için] polisi tutukla-d . Ali-acc interrogate-to for police arrest-past “Police-arresting happened to Ali to interrogate him.”

As seen in (34b) agent incorporation cases do not allow passivization. In this respect, they behave similarly to unaccusative constructions which lack true syntactic subjects. This highlights the non-argument status of the agent NPs. In (34c), on the other hand, we see that the bare agent fails to control PRO. This again implies that agents are not in a syntactic subject position in these constructions.


119

This raises the question whether it is possible to argue for a true unaccusative structure for pseudo-incorporation of agents as the one shown in (35): (35)

TP wo T’ wo ThemeP T [+EPP] wo MERGE NP àobject Theme’ wo Complex Predicate à VP Theme [+Case, +Ref] wo V’ wo NP V

Such a structure implies that there is no AgentP, which would introduce the subject argument. But the only argument is the object NP. However, proposing such a structure for pseudo incorporation of agents illustrated in (33) fails to capture how the pseudo-incorporated NP gets interpreted as an agent. Therefore, we assume that (35) cannot be the representation for (33). There has to be an AgentP in the structure to ensure the presence of an agent theta role:


120 (36)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T [+EPP] wo Ag’ wo ThemeP Ag wo MERGE NPàAy e-acc Theme’ wo Complex Predicate à VP Theme wo V’ wo NP V köpek ss rd The proposal that bare nouns are merged as part of the complex predicate raises the question whether it is possible to merge an NP into [Spec, AgentP] in (36) above. Such an NP would have to be interpreted as the subject. In other words, is it possible to double the agent? (37)

*Fido Ay e-yi köpek ss r-d . Fido Ay e-acc dog bite-past “Fido dog-bit Ay e.”

However, as seen in (37) agent doubling is not possible. We argue that this follows from the case checking properties of pseudo-incorporated agents, similar to what we have seen with pseudo-incorporated themes. We propose the following structure for pseudo incorporation of agents:


121

(38)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo köpek ss r-d i Ag’ wo ThemeP Ag [+Case, -Ref] wo ti MERGE NPàAy e-acc Theme’ wo Complex Predicate à VP Theme [+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ ti wo NP V In (38) the verb needs to pick up its arguments via head movement. Since the lexical verb is a complex predicate in the form of [NP+V] in the case of pseudo incorporation, the whole V-bar undergoes head movement. The Theme head is marked for strong case, where referentiality is present as well. This satisfies the two requirements to project a full argument NP as the theme object, hence an overt NP is merged into [Spec, ThemeP]. Then the verb complex raises to the Agent head, which is only marked as [+case], but lacks the referentiality feature. The NP within the [NP+V] complex checks off the case feature on Agent head.5 Thus it is associated with the theta role on the agent head and is interpreted as the agent. Since the case feature is already assigned, it will not be possible to introduce any other NP into the structure which would be interpreted as a subject agent. In summary, we have shown that within the phrase structure model presented in example (1) above, it is possible to accommodate the casechecking and theta-role assignment properties of pseudo incorporation structures in Turkish. Using certain feature specifications on theta-role introducing functional heads, it is possible to present a unified account both for pseudo incorporation of agents and themes, and also for their exceptional behaviors under passivization and causativization. Before we start discussing another case of immediately preverbal bare nouns found in light verb constructions, we would like to discuss briefly how

122


such an analysis of pseudo incorporation can account for the differences between cases of head incorporation à la Baker (1988) and pseudo incorporation cases as the one introduced here. As discussed in detail in Chapter II, a defining feature of headincorporation languages as shown by Baker (1988) is that it is not possible to incorporate external arguments via movement of the head noun. This is not allowed, as external arguments are base-generated higher in the structure, where they c-command the verb head that they would incorporate into, thus incorporation of an N head from the subject position violates the Head Movement Constraint (HMC). Therefore, in languages with head incorporation only internal arguments can incorporate. However, as seen in the Turkish data in the case of pseudo-incorporation it is possible to pseudo-incorporate NPs associated with either agent or theme theta roles. This is because in Turkish the pseudo-incorporated noun does not originate from an argument position, but is merged into the structure as the complement of the lexical verb. It achieves the pseudo incorporation reading by checking off the weak case on theta role introducing functional heads when the [NP+V] complex undergoes head movement. As pseudo-incorporated nouns are not head categories, they are not subject to HMC observed in languages discussed by Baker (1988). Therefore, the constraint that only internal arguments can incorporate does not effectively hold for pseudo-incorporating languages. Theoretically, as long as there is a weak case on a theta role introducing functional head which can be checked by the NP in [NP+V] complex, pseudo incorporation of the theta role specified by that particular functional head is possible. Thus, the analysis we propose here naturally accounts for the restrictions exhibited in terms of theta roles between pseudo incorporation and head incorporation strategies. Another difference between pseudo incorporation and headincorporation is that in head incorporating languages it is possible to strand determiners or modifiers in the argument position once the head-incorporation takes place as in (39). Note that the stranded modifier bears case morphology. Such structures are not allowed in languages like Turkish, which use the pseudo-incorporation strategy: (39) Greenlandic Eskimo: Tuttu-p neqi-tor-punga. Reindeer-erg meat-eat-indic/1s “I ate reindeer’s meat.”

(Baker 1988:96)

The analysis proposed here for pseudo incorporation naturally accounts for this difference. We have argued that the NP in the complex predicate


123

[NP+V] in pseudo-incorporation constructions can check the weak case feature on theta role related functional heads. Weak case, that is, case without referentiality, does not satisfy the condition on establishing argumenthood in Turkish, hence it blocks projecting a Spec position which will introduce the extra syntactic argument. However, in the case of head incorporating languages the complex predicate is not in the form of [NP+V], but [N+V]. Lacking full NP status the N head in the verb complex will not be able to check any case feature, so such a case feature will be available to be morphologically realized on the stranded determiner/modifier after head-incorporation of N takes place. Now we will turn to another construction in Turkish which is formed with immediately preverbal bare nouns, namely the light verb constructions. Again our aim will be to account for this structure under the model given in (1) above. In Chapter II, we introduced the light verb construction in Turkish, which is formed by an immediately preverbal NP and the light verb et- “do”: (40) Meclis yasa-y redd etti. assembly law-acc reject did “The assembly rejected the law.” We have argued that the bare noun in (40) is a full NP and it is merged as a complement of the light verb within the complex predicate. That is, this NP also belongs to the lexical domain shown in (1) above. Grimshaw and Mester (1988), Saito and Hoshi (2000), Saito (2001) and Saito (2002) discussing Japanese light verb constructions diagnosed a case of syntax-semantics mismatch in Japanese: (41)

Mary-ga John-to kekkon-sita. (Saito and Hoshi 2000:261) Mary-nom John-with marriage-did “Mary married John.”

In these constructions the light verb su functions as “an expletive verb” (Saito and Hoshi 2000) and the theta roles assigned to “Mary” and “John” are provided by the noun kekkon. As the subject and the object are not directly selected by the noun in the phrase structure of the sentence but by the light verb this creates a syntax-semantics mismatch. This implies that Japanese phrase structure does not necessarily reflect the predicate-argument structure. To account for this mismatch, Grimshaw and Mester (1988) argue for an operation called argument transfer, where the noun kekkon transfers its theta

124


roles to the light verb and the verb discharges them to syntactic arguments. Saito and Hoshi (2000), Saito (2001) and Saito (2002), on the other hand, argue for an LF incorporation analysis, where the noun kekkon incorporates into the light verb at LF and discharges its theta roles. This analysis implies that Merge can apply in the absence of selectional relations in Japanese (Saito 2002). That is, until the noun incorporates into the light verb head at LF, at D- and Sstructure arguments are merged into the structure without being selected by the noun within the verb complex. In Turkish in light verb constructions the verb et- “do” simply behaves as a denominalizer. Same theta roles found in the sentential structures in (42a) are available in the structure even in the absence of the light verb, as seen in the nominal counterpart given in (42b): (42) a. Meclis yasa-y redd etti. assembly law-acc reject did “The assembly rejected the law.” b. Meclis-in yasa-y redd-i assembly-gen law-acc reject did “The assembly’s rejecting the law”

(sentential)

(nominal)

The analysis provided for light verb constructions in Chapter II, where a predicative NP forms a complex predicate along with the verb head, gains a natural explanation when light verb constructions in Turkish are taken into account. As seen in pseudo-incorporation cases, NPs when projected as sisters to lexical verb heads, retain their predicative status and are not associated with any theta roles, unless they check weak case as the verb complex undergoes head movement. We claim that in light verb constructions such as (40), both AgentP and ThemeP are marked for strong case, which requires an NP to be merged into the Spec position to check this strong case feature. Since all case features are checked by MERGE NP in light verb constructions, the NP in the verb complex is not associated with any case and hence with any theta roles while the verb complex undergoes head-movement. Thus, NPs which are complements of light verbs retain their purely predicative interpretation.


125

(43)

AgentP wo MERGE NPàsubject Agent’ Meclis-nom wo ThemeP Agent [+case, +referentiality] wo MERGE NPà object Theme’ yasa-accAwo Complex Predicate à VP Theme [+case, +referentiality] wo V’ wo NP V0 redd etti

Now let us turn to the syntax-semantics mismatch problem diagnosed by Grimshaw and Mester (1988), Saito and Hoshi (2000), Saito (2001) and Saito (2002) and consider how it can be resolved under the structure in (43) above. In the framework proposed here syntax-semantics mistmatch ceases to be a problem. This is because we consider verbs as completely severed from their arguments in the lexicon. Functional heads introduce arguments into the structue. Hence as seen in (43) in light verb constructions the noun and the light verb complex in the form [NP+V] do not introduce any theta roles. Thus, neither the predicative NP nor the light verb plays a role in theta role assignment. The crucial point here is that light verb constructions exhibit a complete case of complex predicate formation. The complement NP and the light verb are purely predicative and form a complex predicate. They undergo head movement as the verb complex in the form of [NP+V]. Since feature specifications [+case, +referentiality] as an instance of strong case require MERGE NP for Spec positions of theta role introducing functional heads, the NP within the verb complex does not need to check any case feature under head movement. Therefore, it does not get associated with any theta role but retains its purely predicative interpretation. Lack of feature checking by the NP within the [NP+V] complex is attested by the availability of accusative case to the object argument. Remember that in pseudo incorporation of themes, the NP within [NP+V] checks off the weak case on ThemeP. Thus, it blocks accusative case assignment to agents under causativization (see example (24) above). This is

126


not the case with light verb constructions. Accusative case is always available for the true syntactic object: (44) a. Meclis yasa-y redd-(*yi) etti. assembly law-acc reject-(acc) did “The assembly rejected the law.” b. Adam kad n-a ihanet-(*i) etti. man woman-dat betrayal-(acc) did “The man betrayed the woman.” Note that the ungrammaticality in (44) does not follow from the fact that double accusative is unacceptable in Turkish. As seen in (44b) the same ungrammaticality is observed in the presence of an inherently dative-marked object. Again accusative case assignment is not allowed in (44b). Any case marking of the complement predicative NPs leads to ungrammaticality, supporting further evidence for the type-shifter status of strong case, which is realized as overt morphological case markers in Turkish.6 1.3 Summary In Section 1.1 we introduced a Neo-Davidsonian model for Turkish, where all arguments are introduced via independent theta-role introducing functional heads. In Section 1.2 we showed how transitive and intransitive constructions as well as pseudo incorporation and light verb constructions can be accounted for within this model. Transitives and intransitives are formed when theta role introducing functional heads are specified for strong case features. Light verb constructions are instances of complex predicate formation of the [NP+V] type within the lexical domain in (1) when all theta role introducing functional heads are specified for strong case. Pseudo incorporation, on the other hand, is another instance of complex predicate formation within the lexical domain, however in this case one of the theta role introducing functional heads is specified for weak case, which is checked by the pseudo-incorporated NP. Locating the two crucial features for argumenthood, i.e. case and referentiality, on theta role introducing functional heads in Turkish has certain implications for other functional categories as TP and vP which typically play a role in case checking in languages like English. In the following we will focus on these issues.


127

2. Functional Categories and Case-checking in Turkish In languages like English, NPs are referentiality assigned by DPs and then are merged into their theta positions. This means that in such languages the first requirement on argumenthood, namely referentiality, is taken care of in theta position. Then in order to fulfill the second requirement on argumenthood, namely case, DPs must form an Agree relation with higher functional projections such as TP and vP. In English it is typically assumed that object case is provided by vP, whereas subject case is located at TP (Chomsky 1995): (45) a.

TP b. vP ei ei T’ v’ ei ei T vP v VP Agree

Agree DP Subject

DP Object

The proposal defended here that case and referentiality are codependent features and as such they are assigned by theta role introducing functional heads implies that in Turkish NPs will be case assigned in their theta positions. Since case will be available in theta positions unlike English NPs will not have any motivation to form an Agree relation with higher functional categories in Turkish. In the following, we will argue that argument NPs in Turkish do not form Agree with higher functional heads, TP and vP. We will focus on each functional head in turn and discuss what functions they fulfill within the phrase structure of Turkish. 2.1 vP in Turkish Chomsky (1995) introduces vP as the locus of object case-checking. vP is also assumed to be the node where external argument is merged into the structure:


128 (46)

vP ei v’ ei MERGE àEA v’ ei v VP ei V’ ei accusative case via Agree V Obj

In the discussion of Turkish above we have proposed that case checking takes place in theta positions. This raises the question of whether vP can be motivated for Turkish as a functional category that plays a role in case checking. In the following, we will discuss several motivations proposed in the literature to argue for a vP in languages like English and evaluate their validity for Turkish. We will propose that there is no motivation to argue for a vP as a functional projection that establishes a case-driven Agree relation with the object. 2.1.1 Burzio s Generalization and Turkish. The idea behind the configuration given in (46), where object case checking and merging of external argument take place within the same vP projection, follows from the generalization proposed by Burzio (1986): (47) Burzio s Generalization: Abstract accusative case is assigned if and only if an external theta-role is assigned. Thus one of the motivations for proposing vP as a functional projections strictly follows from Burzio’s generalization. However, Burzio’s Generalization has not been free from cross-linguistic challenges (see Harley 1995, Pylkkänen 2002, Markman 2003). Pseudo incorporation of agents in Turkish also presents a challenge for Burzio’s Generalization:


129

(48) Ali-yi polis tutukla-d . Ali-acc police arrest-past “Police arresting happened to Ali.” (49) a. Polisi Ali-yi [PROi sorgula-mak için] tutukla-d . police Ali-acc interrogate-to for arrest-past “The police arrested Ali to interrogate him.” b. *Ali-yi [PROi sorgula-mak için] polisi tutukla-d . Ali-acc interrogate-to for police arrest-past “Police-arresting happened to Ali to interrogate him.” (50) a. Polis Ali-yi kas tl olarak tutukla-d . police Ali-acc intentionally arrest-past The police arrested Ali intentionally. b. *Ali-yi kas tl olarak polis tutukla-d . Ali-acc intentionally police arrest-past “Police-arresting happened to Ali intentionally.” As discussed in Chapter II, pseudo incorporation of agents does not allow control or agent oriented adverbs which target external arguments. As seen in (49a) the noun polis in the canonical subject position can control into purpose clauses binding the PRO. However, in the case of (49b), which exhibits agent incorporation, it is not possible to control into the purpose clause. This implies that in pseudo-incorporation cases agents are not in canonical subject positions, that is, they are not functioning as “external arguments”. As seen in (50b), as opposed to (50a), it is not possible to use adverbs oriented towards agentive external arguments with pseudo incorporation of agents. This also shows that pseudo-incorporated agents are not external arguments. Thus, Turkish posits a challenge to Burzio’s Generalization, since it is possible to assign accusative to the object in the absence of an external argument. As illustrated above, Burzio’s Generalization does not provide a strong argument to motivate a vP node for Turkish. A parametric account has to be proposed to factor out the differences between languages which strictly obey Burzio’s Generalization and the ones which do not like Turkish. We will return to this problem briefly, but before that we will consider other motivations proposed in the literature to argue for vP.


130

2.1.2 Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001). Another argument in the literature which solely relies on the case feature on vP is by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001). They propose the following as a cross-linguistic claim: (51)

By Spell-Out VP can contain no more than one argument with an unchecked Case feature.

They discuss the stylistic inversion phenomenon in French as an example of this restriction: (52) a. Je me demande ou Marie mangera demain. I wonder where Marie will-eat tomorrow “I wonder where Marie will eat tomorrow.” b. Je me demande ou mangera Marie demain. c. Je me demande ou Marie mangera sa pomme. I wonder ou Marie will-eat her apple “I wonder where Marie will eat her apple.” d. *Je me demande ou mangera Marie sa pomme. (Boeckx 2003a: 182) As seen in (52d) when more than one argument remains VP-internally, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. Otherwise, it is acceptable as illustrated in (52a-c). They argue that this follows from the case features on the functional heads v and T. The complex head formed by v-to-T movement cannot have active case features of both v and T. Therefore, they claim that one of the case features must be eliminated before the complex head is formed. Thus, this way they avoid multiple case-driven movement operations targeting the same head: (53)

Tmax wo Vb T wo V v

They assume “a very local relationship between an argument and its case-checking head, which is destroyed as soon as a complex head is formed


131

containing two unchecked case features” (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2001:218). Boeckx (2003a) presents an alternative account for the problem introduced by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001). Boeckx assumes an Agree operation between T and the complex head v/V formed after V-to-v movement. He argues that the ungrammaticality in (52d) is due to the idea that the “v/V possesses a reflex of Case checking with the accusative element, that is, a valued φ-feature set” (Boeckx 2003a: 183). Both the external argument, which must check its case with T and v/V, which also carries a set of valued φfeature compete for Agree with T. Thus, the ungrammaticality follows. If there is no object which gets into a case-checking relation with v/V, then there will not be ungrammaticality since v/V will not have a valued φ-feature set, which will qualify it to undergo an Agree relation with T. Both of the accounts summarized above strongly rely on the presence of a v node and its case-checking features. Now we will turn to Turkish and see how Turkish behaves with respect to the restriction presented by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001) in (51). Turkish strongly challenges the restriction provided in (51), since all arguments can remain in their theta positions: (54) [CP[TP [NegP [AgentP bütün çocuklar [ThemePo test-e [VPgir-me-di]]]] all children that test-dat take-neg-past “All children did not take that test.” (*all> not , not>all) If it is assumed that negation is introduced right above all the theta role introducing functional projections, then based on the scope relations it is clear that both the subject and the object are in situ. 7, 8 Movement out of theta positions is possible in Turkish, however, this reverses the scope relations as seen in (55b): (55) a. (Allahtan) bütün çocuklar (*/?Allahtan) o test-e gir-me-di. luckily all children luckily that test-dat take-neg-past “Luckily, All children did not take that test.” (*all>not, not>all) b. Bütün çocuk-lar (Allahtan) o test-e gir-me-di-ler. all child-pl luckily that test-dat take-neg-past-plural “All the children luckily didn’t take that test.”(all>not, *not>all) As seen in (55b) it is possible for the subject to move to [Spec, TP], thus to precede the TP level adverb. This movement triggers subject-verb


132

agreement. We propose that overt subject-verb agreement implies dislocation of the subject from its theta position. In (55a) on the other hand, the subject cannot precede a TP level adverb, since as shown by the absence of agreement it has not left its theta position. That is in (55a) both the subject and the object are in their base positions, contrary to the proposal in (51). How then can we resolve the dilemma introduced by Turkish? It is obvious that in quite a few languages discussed by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001) the restriction in (51) is very strictly observed. Both their analysis and the one proposed by Boeckx (2003a) assume that the restriction follows from the presence of a v(/V) node which undergoes a case checking relation with the object. However, as the discussion in Sections 2.12.2 highlights, case and referentiality are co-dependent features in Turkish and they are encoded on the same head. If we assume that there is no Agree relation between an object and vP in Turkish, since object case is provided not by vP but in situ by the ThemeP, Turkish will cease to be a problem for (51). In other words, if there is no vP level in Turkish, there will be no need to apply such a restriction in Turkish. Since no complex head with multiple case features such as the one in (52) will be formed, it will be possible for more than one argument to remain in their theta positions. As seen in Section 1.1 Turkish disobeys Burzio’s Generalization as well, which also strongly relies on a relationship between the external argument and the object case exhibited within the domain of the same functional projection, namely, vP. This argues for eliminating the vP from the phrase structure of Turkish. Furthermore, it implies that vP should be parametrically defined cross-linguistically and when it is absent Burzio’s Generalization or the restriction given in (51) does not need to be obeyed. 2.1.3 vP Fronting. Another argument to motivate vP is based on the VP fronting data discussed by Huang (1993): (56) John said that[VPti wash himselfBill/*John][TPBilli certainly would tVP] Huang (1993) discusses the coreferentiality possibilities in the above data within the VP-internal subject framework. Abels (2003) represents the same data with the following structure, where the subject Bill is merged in the Spec of vP within the Minimalist framework: (57)

John said that [[vP tBill v [VP wash himselfBill/*John]] Bill certainly would tvP


133

The unavailability of a coindexation between John and himself implies that the trace of Bill still c-commands the reflexive. This further suggests that the fronted constituent is vP rather than VP, since external arguments are introduced in [Spec, vP]. Thus, this data identifies vP as a syntactic constituent. Now we will turn to the question whether or not there is an identifiable vP level in Turkish. There is one type of example in Turkish which on the surface looks like a case of vP-fronting: (58) a. Her çocuk oda-s n-a git-me-di. every child room-3ps-dat go-not-past i. “It is not the case that every child went to his room.” (not>every) ii. “Every child is such that he didn’t go to his room.” (every>not) b. Oda-s n-a git-me-di her çocuk. room-3ps-dat go-not-past every child i. “*It is not the case that every child went to his room.” (not>every) ii. “Every child is such that he didn’t go to his room.” (every>not) Structure in (58b) seems to be very similar to vP-fronting. However, the question is whether this is formed via the fronting of the vP or by right adjunction of the subject. (Note that in Chapter II we have illustrated that in the case of possessive phrases right adjunction is possible in Turkish.) The scope facts in (58b) imply that the subject has moved to [Spec, TP] as illustrated above, as only wide scope reading is possible for the subject. Then the question is whether the subject has been right dislocated from this position possibly getting attached to the CP level as in (59a) or whether the subject has remained in [Spec, TP] and the rest of the clause has been fronted as in (59b). If it is the latter case then this might argue for an independent vP level. (59) a. [CP [TP ti [vP ti Oda-s n-a git-me-di]] [NP her çocuki]] b. [CP[vP ti Oda-s n-a git-me-di]j [TP her çocuki [vP tj]]] If (59b) is the correct representation, then the same phenomenon should be possible in embedded clauses. Consider:

134


(60) a. Ali [her çocu -un oda-s n-a git-me-di -i-]ni söyledi. Ali every child-gen room-3ps-dat go-not-nomin-3ps-acc said Ali said that every child didn’t go to his room. b. *Ali [oda-s n-a git-me-di -i-]ni her çocu -un söyledi. Ali room-3ps-dat go-not nomin-3ps-acc every child-gen said “Ali said that every child didn’t go to his room.” c. Her çocu -un Ali [oda-s n-a git-me-di -i-]ni söyledi. every child-gen Ali room-3ps-dat go-not nomin-3ps-acc said “Ali said that every child didn’t go to his room.” d. Ali [oda-s n-a git-me-di -i-]ni söyledi her çocu -un. Ali room-3ps-dat go-not nomin-3ps-acc said every child-gen “Ali said that every child didn’t go to his room.” As seen in (60b) embedding (60b) in a matrix clause leads to ungrammaticality. This argues for the representation in (59a). That is, the structure in (59b) is an instance of NP movement, which is another example of right adjunction at the matrix CP level.9 This is furtherly supported by (60c) and (60d), where the subject of the embedded clause can be adjoined to the matrix CP. Therefore, we conclude that Huang’s test for English is not applicable to Turkish, thus there is no vP fronting in Turkish. Kornfilt (1990), on the other hand, provides the following examples to argue for an identifiable VP level for Turkish: (61) a. Ben kitabAhmed-e ver-ece -im, Mehmet de öyle. I book-acc Ahmet-dat give-fut-1ps, Mehmet and thus “I will give the book to Ahmet and so will Mehmet.” b. *Ben kitabAhmed-e ver-ece -im, Mehmet de I book-acc Ahmet-dat give-fut-1ps, Mehmet and gazete-yi öyle. newspaper- acc thus “ I will give the book to Ahmet and so will Mehmet the newspaper.” Kornfilt (1990) claims that the contrast in (61) argues for a VP level, which includes the verb and the object to the exclusion of the subject. She argues since it is not possible to strand the object in (61b), the verb and the object form a constituent. Her example can be used to argue for a vP level in the current framework. (61a) can be analyzed as a case where the vP has been substituted after the external argument has moved into [Spec, TP]. This


135

suggests that the verb and the object form a constituent. In (61b), on the other hand, leaving the object stranded leads to ungrammaticality. However, the grammaticality judgments presented by Kornfilt for (61) does not follow from verb’s forming a constituent with the object but from the fact that the adverb öyle cannot be used by itself without the verb yap- “to do”. Therefore, both of the examples in (61) above are equally bad, as suggested by the grammaticality judgements of native speakers of Turkish. That is, (61a) should also be starred. Providing the verb yap- resolves the ungrammaticality: (62) a. Ben kitabAhmed-e ver-ece -im, Mehmet de öyle yap-acak. I book-acc Ahmet-dat give-fut-1ps Mehmet and thus do-fut “I will give the book to Ahmet and so will Mehmet.” b. Ben kitabAhmed-e ver-ece -im, Mehmet de I book-acc Ahmet-dat give-fut-1ps Mehmet and gazete-yi öyle yap-acak. newspaper-acc thus do-fut “I will give the book to Ahmet and so will Mehmet the newspaper.” Thus, her examples do not necessarily follow from stranding of the object. On the contrary, object stranding is totally acceptable in Turkish unlike English. Consider: (63) Ben ev-i hay rkurumu-na ba layaca m Mehmet de araba-y öyle I house-acc charity-dat donate-1ps Mehmet and car-acc thus yap-acak. do-fut “I will donate the house to the charity and Mehmet will do so the car.” As seen in (63) it is perfectly possible to strand the object, when only the verb is substituted. Thus, we can very confidently conclude that there is no identifiable vP layer in Turkish. 2.1.4 Legate (2003). Chomsky (1999) introduces the notion of derivation by phase. A phase is a self-contained subsection of derivation, beginning with a numeration and ending with Spell-Out (Legate (2003:1). At Spell-Out, the complement of the head which defines the phase, is sent to PF and LF for interpretation. Chomsky argues that both CP and vP form phases. When the vP phase is complete, its complement VP is sent to PF and LF to be interpreted.

136


This leads to the Phase-Impenetrability Condition. Chomsky (1999) defines this notion as: “In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside of α, but only H and its edge.” The edge includes any specifiers of H and any adjuncts to H. This means that an element can only move outside of a phase if it moves or is merged to the edge of a phase. Legate (2003) introduces three arguments for the phasehood of vP: a. reconstruction of wh-phrases to the vP edge. b. quantifier raising in ACD constructions targeting the vP edge. c. parasitic gaps licensed at the vP edge. Now by using the arguments provided by Legate (2003) we will consider whether there is a phase level which can be diagnosed as vP in Turkish, similar to the case in English. Turkish does not have ACD constructions of the type observed in English (Özsoy 1996). It does not obviously exhibit parasitic gaps either, being an object drop language as shown by nce (2004). Thus, these tests are inapplicable to Turkish. Therefore, in the following we will only focus on the test of reconstruction of wh-phrases to the vP edge proposed by Legate (2003) and discuss to what extent it is applicable to Turkish. (64) a. [Which of the papers that hei gave Maryj ] did every studenti √ ask herj to read * carefully? b. [Which of the papers that hei gave Maryj ] did shej * ask every studenti to revise *? Legate (2003) discusses the examples in (64) from Fox (2000), which exhibit movement targeting the edge of vP as a phase. (64a) is grammatical since there is a reconstruction site for the wh-phrase that satisfies two conditions: (i) the bound pronoun he is c-commanded by every student. (ii) The R-expression Mary is not c-commanded by the coreferent pronoun her/she. She constructs similar examples, using passives in order to show that the edge of vP is also a possible reconstruction site for wh-movement: (65) a. [At which of the parties that hei invited Maryj to] was every mani √ introduced to herj to read * ?


137

b. [At which of the parties that hei invited Maryj to] was shej * introduced to every mani * ? She argues that in (65a) above again the wh-phrase satisfies the two conditions given above at the edge of vP, thus follows the grammaticality, whereas since there is no landing site for the wh-phrase where the two conditions are both met, (65b) is not grammatical. Thus, Legate (2003) also proposes that passive constructions involve vP phases in English. Now let us try to construct these examples in Turkish to test whether it is possible to argue for an operation which targets a position such as a vP edge. (66) a. *proi Mary-ej verdi i hangi ödev-i her ö rencii proj Mary-dat given which paper-acc every student dikkatli okumas -n istedi? carefully read-acc asked “Which of the papers that he*i/k gave Maryj did every studenti ask herj to read carefully?” b. *proi Mary-ej verdi i hangi ödev-i proj her ö renci-nini Mary-dat given which paper-acc every student-gen dikkatli okumas -n istedi? carefully read-acc asked “Which of the papers that hei gave Maryj ] did shej ask every studenti to read carefully? ” (67) a. *proi Mary-ij ça rd hangi parti-de her adami onun-laj Mary-acc invited which party-loc every man her-with tan -t r- l-d ? introduce-caus-pass-past “At which of the parties that hei invited Maryj towas every mani introduced to herj to read? ” b. *proi Mary-ij ça rd hangi parti-de proj her adam-lai Mary-acc invited which party-loc every man-with tan -t r- l-d ? introduce-cause-pass-past “At which of the parties that hei invited Maryj towas shej introduced to every mani?” As seen above, the counterpart of Legate’s examples in Turkish are strictly ungrammatical. Turkish is a scrambling language where contrastively

138


focused elements can occur preverbally interacting with sentential stress (Kural 1992, Göksel & Özsoy 2000): (68) a. Adamlar evler-i görmü . men houses-acc saw “The men saw the houses.” b. Evler-i ADAMLAR görmü . houses-acc men saw “It was THE MEN who saw the houses.” Wh-elements by default are focused and they can also occur preverbally in Turkish: (69) a. Cuma Ali buraya geldi. Friday Ali here came “Ali came here on Friday.” b. Ali buraya ne zaman geldi? Ali here what time came “When did Ali come here?” Legate’s tests involve wh-questions and scrambling in Turkish, which are both very sensitive to the focus information of the sentence. This implies that there are many other factors playing a role in the construction of sentences provided by Legate (2003) in Turkish. Therefore, it is not possible to argue that these are secure tests to check the availability of vP in Turkish. We will return to the issue of scrambling and focus in section 4.1. But we conclude that it is not possible to apply the tests provided by Legate (2003) to Turkish. In summary the discussion above argues against the presence of vP as a case-assigning functional projection in the phrase structure of Turkish. Turkish does not exhibit any motivation for a vP level. It is also immune to several restrictions which lead to ungrammaticality in languages with a vP. Thus, we conclude that Turkish does not have a vP and as shown in Section 2.2 object case is assigned in situ by the theta role introducing functional heads. 2.2 TP in Turkish Now that we have shown that it is not possible to argue for vP in Turkish, then the question is what the status of TP as a case-assigner is in Turkish. The presence of TP as the location of the Tense feature in Turkish is almost uncontroversial (Kural 1993, Kennelly 1996, Kornfilt 1997, Aygen 1998,


139

2002a, Özsoy 2002, Kelepir 2001, Öztürk 2002a, among others).10 However, whether the projection of [Spec, TP] is obligatory or not in Turkish has never been questioned. It has generally been assumed that Turkish exhibits EPP, which needs to be satisfied by the movement of subjects into [Spec, TP] as in George & Kornfilt (1981), Kornfilt (1984, 2002), Özsoy (1988, 2002), Kural (1993), Aygen (1998, 2000a, 2000b 2002a), Kelepir (2001), among others. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that in pro-drop languages with rich verbal agreement head movement of the verb can check EPP. That is, EPP checking does not require MERGE XP, but MOVE X0. Öztürk (1999, 2002a) has also independently proposed that in Turkish verbal agreement satisfies EPP. This proposal implies that [Spec, TP] does not have to be projected in Turkish. Turkish provides strong evidence for this based on scope relations: (70) a. [TP[NegP[AgentPBütün çocuklar [ThemeP o test-e [VPgir-me-di]]] all children that test-dat take-neg-past “All children did not take that test.” (*all> not , not>all) b. [TPBütün çocuklari[NegP[AgentP ti[ThemeP o test-e [VPgir-me-di-ler]]] all children that test-dat take-neg-past “All children did not take that test.” (all> not , *not>all) As discussed above, in Turkish constituents can stay in their theta positions as illustrated by (70a) above. This implies that the [Spec, TP] is not projected. However, in (70b) the subject moves into [Spec, TP] to achieve wide scope. Note that this leads to overt verbal agreement. Passives and unaccusatives, on the other hand, are known to be typical examples of cases, where subjects move into [Spec, TP] for EPP reasons (also for case within the GB framework under case-driven A-movement) in languages like English: (71) a. [TP[NegP[AgentP[ThemeP bütün çocuklar] [VPça r]- l]-ma]- ]11 all children invite-pass-neg-past “All children were not invited (but some were).” (*all>not, not>all) b. [TPBütün çocuk-lari [NegP[AgentP[ThemeP ti][VPça r]- l]-ma]- -(lar)] all child-pl invite-pass-neg-past-pl “All children were such that they were not invited.” (all>not, not>all) In (71a) the quantified NP “all children” unambiguously takes narrow scope with respect to negation, which is introduced by NegP. This implies that

140


in Turkish subject NPs do not need to be raised to [Spec, TP], hence such a position does not need to be projected, as long as the verb raising checks off EPP. Raising to [Spec, TP] leads to wide scope reading for the subject with respect to negation as seen in (71b). This movement to [Spec, TP] triggers Subject-Verb agreement via Spec-Head agreement in TP. Scope facts in unaccusatives also support the idea that NPs do not undergo movement into [Spec, TP] in Turkish: (72) a. [TP[NegP[ThemeP Bütün çocuklar] [VPgel]-me]-di] all children come-neg-past “All children did not come (but some did).” (*all> not , not>all) b. [TPBütün çocuk-lari [NegP[ThemeP ti][VPgel]-me]-di-*(ler)] all child-pl come-neg-past-plural “All children were such that they did not come.” (all> not , *not>all) Parallel to the passive constructions, in unaccusatives NPs which are merged at [Spec,TP] also always take narrow scope with respect to negation which is introduced higher than all theta-role related projections as seen in (72a). This implies that Theme NPs do not raise to [Spec, TP] for EPP reasons. They can only take scope higher than negation if they are overtly moved to [Spec, TP] which triggers subject-verb agreement as in (72b). This again shows that [Spec, TP] in Turkish is not projected for EPP reasons. Turkish unergatives can also undergo passivization yielding, impersonal passive structures. There are no overt expletives in subject positions in Turkish. Aygen (2002a) argues that there might be an empty expletive in the subject position in Turkish in the case of impersonal passives. However, in parallel to the cases we have shown above we argue that there is no need to project [Spec, TP] in Turkish. Thus in impersonal passives there is no [Spec, TP], hence no empty expletive: (73) ko -ul-du. run-pass-past “Running was done.” Pseudo incorporation of agents also illustrates another case of unprojected [Spec, TP]s:


141

(74) Ali-yi polis tutukla-d . Ali-acc police arrest-past “Police arresting happened to Ali.” As we discussed above, pseudo-incorporated agents are not in a subject position, that is, [Spec, AgentP]. Therefore, it is not possible for them to move into [Spec, TP]. We argue that in these constructions, there is no need for an expletive in Turkish, since it is possible not to project [Spec, TP]. 12 To summarize, we have shown that there is a need for the TP level in Turkish. However, projecting [Spec, TP] is not obligatory for EPP reasons, since verb movement can take care of EPP à la Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998). Given TP exists in Turkish, then the question is whether it plays a role in case-assignment or not. Miyagawa (1991) assumes case checking is mediated in two steps in languages like Japanese: Case feature assignment and Case Realization. He argues that case feature assignment for the subject and the object is done by different head categories (e.g.lexical V for the object, I for the subject). As for morphological case realization of subject case and object case, he assumes that they must be licensed by a functional category that has in its scope the entire clause, such as Aspect or Inflection. A position is licensed by a functional category if it is governed by the functional category or if it is immediately dominated by a projection of the functional category. (75) a. John-no suugaku-no benkyoo John-gen math-gen studying “John’s studying of math” b. John-ga suugaku-o benkyoo-tyuu John-nom math-obj study-while “While John studies math” As seen in (75), unless there is an aspectual/inflectional element such as the aspect marker tyuu in (75b), which takes the entire clause under its scope it is not possible to have the object case (accusative) morphologically realized. In the absence of an aspectual/inflectional element, the verb is in the nominal form thus only the genitive case is allowed in (75a). Miyagawa (1991) explains this difference by the following configuration:


142 (76)

AspP wo Subji-nom Asp’ wo NP Asp wo ti N’ Nj-aspect wo Obj-acc tj

He argues that in (75b) the N head-incorporates into the Aspect head. This enables the Aspect head to govern everything governed by the inflected N head from its original structural position à la the government transparency corollary by Baker (1988). Thus, objective case (accusative) as opposed to genitive can be realized under government by Aspect head. In the case of (75a), on the other hand, there is no such head incorporation, therefore, the Aspect head cannot govern into the NP and enable morphological realization of accusative on the object. Thus, Miyagawa (1991) assumes that the inflectional head (TP in our terms) plays a crucial role in the morphological realization of structural cases within a clause. Turkish exhibits very similar characteristics to Japanese in that respect. Turkish has three different kinds of nominalizers Im, -I and –mA. –Im yields result nominals, whereas – and –mA derive event nominals:13 (77) a. Bina-nin/*y (*üç saat-te) y k- mbuilding-gen/-acc (3 hours in) destroy-nomin-3ps “The building’s destruction (*in 3 hours)” b. Ali-nin bina-y (üç saat-te) y k-ma/ Ali-gen building-acc (3hour) destroy-nomin-3ps “Ali’s destruction of the building in 3 hours” As seen in (77a) with result nominals it is not possible to have accusative case on the object, whereas the accusative is acceptable in (77b) with event nominals. The crucial difference between the two is that event nominals allow aspectual modifiers as seen in (77b). This argues that AspectP has to be realized in (77b), as opposed to (77a).14 Thus, similar to Japanese, the inflectional/aspectual head plays a crucial role in morphological realization of cases within a clause. As shown above Turkish does not exhibit movement of the subjects into [Spec, TP] in active, passive and unaccusative constructions for EPP,


143

unless there is a need to create a wide scope interpretation for the subject. Within the GB framework, movement of subjects into [Spec, TP] is not solely for EPP reasons but also for case checking, since the T head is assumed to be the case assigner of nominative. However, if considered within the GB framework, Turkish does not exhibit any motivation for movement into [Spec, TP] for case purposes. That is, there is no case-driven A-movement into [Spec, TP] à la GB terms then the T head cannot be the locus of nominative case feature. If we extend this GB notion to our current framework, it implies that there cannot be a case-driven Agree relation between the T head and the subject in the theta position for case purposes, since the T head does not host the case feature.15 Such an interpretation will be in parallel to what we have been assuming in Sections 1.2 that case assignment in Turkish is done in theta positions, since the theta role introducing functional heads bear both case and referentiality features, which in combination act as a type-shifter. Therefore, we conclude that the T head does not play a role in case feature checking. However, as seen in (77) similar to the Japanese case the T head does play a role in morphological realization of case features in Turkish. How does this follow if the T head is not the locus of any case features? It has been well-noticed that case-morphology is independent of casechecking. Kuroda (1965, 1978, 1979, 1988) argues that case in Japanese is not sensitive to phrase structure but to surface order. That is, in Japanese morphological realization of case takes place top>down following a nominative>dative>accusative order. Marantz (1991) also proposes that “Case licensing is not case morphology” (Marantz 1991: 241). Harley (1995), on the other hand, elaborates on the issue of case realization and proposes the following Mechanical Case Parameter: (78) a. If one case feature is checked structurally in a clause, it is realized as Nominative (mandatory case) b. If two case features are checked structurally in a clause the second (in a sequential sense) is realized as accusative. c. If three case features are checked structurally in a clause, the second is realized as Dative the third as Accusative. d. The mandatory case in a multiple-case clause is assigned in the top/bottom AgrP. In the discussion above we have argued that in Turkish argument NPs are case assigned in their base-theta positions. Case realizationwise Turkish is

144


in full compliance with the Mechanical Case Parameter proposed by Harley (1995). Consider the case of causatives in Turkish: (79) a. Ali ko -tu. Ali run-past “Ali ran.” b. Ay e Ali-yi ko -tur-du. Ay e Ali-acc run-cause-past “Ay e made Ali run.” (80) a. Ali bal tuttu. Ali fish-acc caught “Ali caught the fish.” b. Ay e Ali-ye/*yi bal tut-tur-du. Ay e Ali-dat/acc fish-acc catch-cause-past “Ay e made Ali catch the fish.” (81) a. Ay e Ali-ye gül-dü. Ay e Ali-dat laugh-past “Ay e laughed at Ali.” b. Ahmet Ay e-yi/*ye Ali-ye gül-dür-dü. Ahmet Ay e-acc/dat Ali-dat laugh-cause-past “Ahmet made Ay e laugh at Ali.” Example (79) illustrates that when an unergative verb is causativized in Turkish the agent is marked for accusative as in (78b). However, if there is a transitive construction as in (80) then causativization results in a structure where the agent is marked for dative as the second argument and the object for accusative as the third as in (78b). Marking the agent as accusative leads to ungrammaticality. Example (81), on the other hand, illustrates that if there is an inherent dative case as in (81a) then given that the causer is realized as nominative in (81b), the agent can only get accusative as the second argument to be marked for structural case as in (78b) again. Thus, Turkish fully follows the requirements in (78).16, 17 Within the framework proposed here, causative constructions will be formed by projecting a CauseP, which will introduce the causer argument:18


145

(82)

a. Ali çocu -a kitaboku-t-tu. Ali child-dat book-acc read-caus-past “Ali made the child read the book.” b. TP wo T’ wo CauseP T ß Nom wo Causer+Agent+Theme+V Causer NP Cause’ wo AgentP Cause [+Case, +Ref] ß Dat wo Agent+Themeti+ tj Agent NP Ag’ wo ThemeP Ag [+Case, +Ref] ß Acc wo Theme+ti Theme NP Theme’ wo Comp Pred àVP Theme [+Case, +Ref] wo ti V’ V ti

We argue that in (82) all arguments are case-checked and type-shifted in their theta positions. Then, in compliance with (78), morphological case realization takes place top down. At that point we argue that the T head plays a crucial role. As the lexical verb has to go through every theta role introducing functional head and take part in case-checking relation with the NPs in Spec positions, it forms a complex head. When this complex head raises to the T head, eventually it bears a case reflex of all the arguments in the clause. Then in relation to the T head morphological case realization takes place in a top down fashion. The top theta role related position gets nominative then the rest follows the requirements provided in (78). Thus, the T head plays a crucial role for morphological case realization. When the verb complex raises to T, i.e., to a position which takes all theta role related projections under its scope, cases on arguments can be realized morphologically. Thus, movement into T is crucial

146


for case morphology. Note that such a morphological derivation immediately explains the double case restriction in Turkish, which we introduced earlier while discussing the case of pseudo incorporation above (Aissen 1974, Zimmer 1976, Taylan 1979, 1984, Göksel 1993, among others).19 Given such a derivation, now we can discuss the case realization of pseudo-incorporation of themes under causativization. As discussed above in the case of theme incorporation causativization requires the agent to be marked for dative, but not for accusative as seen in (83b). We have explained the unavailability of the accusative case for the agent by the pseudo-incorporated NP’s checking off the weak case feature on Theme head. (83) a. Ali bal k tut-tu. (pseudo-incorporation) Ali fish catch-past “Ali went fishing.” b. Ay e Ali-ye/*yi bal k tut-tur-du Ay e Ali-dat/acc fish catch-caus-past “Ay e made Ali go fishing.” c. TP wo T’ wo CauseP T wo bal k tuti-turj-du ß Nom Ay e Cause’ wo AgentP Cause [+Case, +Ref] wo ti+ tj ß Dat MERGE àAli-dat Ag’ wo ThemeP Ag [+Case, +Ref] wo ti ß Acc Theme’ wo Comp Pred à VP Theme [+Case, -Ref] wo ti V’ ti wo NP V Again assuming a top down realization of case morphology, in (83c) the highest theta role related projection gets the structural nominative case.20


147

The second theta role related projection is reserved for the structural dative case, whereas the third one gets accusative in compliance with (78).21 In this framework, passive structures will be represented as in (84b). Passive morphology will suppress the case feature on Agent head. Then the NP at [Spec, ThemeP] as the only theta-role related NP in the structure has to be realized nominative, since nominative is the mandatory case, which has to be realized in accordance with (78a):22, 23 (84) a. Cam k r- l-d . window break-pass-past “The window was broken.” b.

TP wo

T’ wo

AgentP wo Ag’

T [+EPP] kiri-ilj-di

wo

ThemeP wo

Ag

pass: - Case

ti + t j

MERGE àCam

Theme’ wo Comp Pred à VP Theme [+Case, +Ref] ß Nom wo

ti

V’ wo

V ti As seen above we have shown that case checking is in situ and that there is no case-driven Agree with the functional head T in Turkish, however, the T head plays an important role in morphological realization of case in compliance with (78) above. At this point we need to discuss ECM constructions, which seem to challenge our proposal. In languages like English in ECM constructions it is generally assumed that embedded subjects raise to the object position of the main clause to be case marked by the matrix verb:


148 (85)

Ali Ay e-yi elma-y ye-di san yor. Ali Ay e-acc apple-acc eat-past thinks “Ali believes Ay e to have eaten the apple.”

The construction in (85) has been analyzed on a par with English ECM constructions, where it is assumed that the embedded subject undergoes raising for case as discussed in Aissen (1974), George & Kornfilt (1981), Kornfilt (1984, 2001), Moore (1988), Kural (1993), Zidani-Ero lu (1997a), Özsoy (2002). Aygen (2002a) claiming that the embedded clause is a full CP, has convincingly shown that the embedded subject does not raise to the matrix clause but moves to the edge of the embedded CP, where an Agree relation is established between the higher verb and ECM subject, along the lines of Bruening (2001). Contrary to Zidani-Ero lu (1997a), Aygen (2002a) shows that adverbs preceding ECM subjects always take scope within the domain of the embedded clause, never in the matrix clause: (86)

Ben Kür at- her zaman [geç kal- yor] san- yor-du-m. I Kür at-acc always be.late-prog think-prog-past-1sg “I thought Kür at was always being late.” (NOT: I always thought Kür at was being late) (Aygen 2002a:254)

The unavailability of matrix scope for the adverb clearly shows that the ECM subject does not raise to the matrix clause for case reasons as claimed by the previous analysis. The Agree analysis by Aygen (2002a) implies that the embedded subject gets its case from the matrix verb. However, since the embedded subject gets its theta role in situ in the embedded clause, within the model we are proposing it should also check its case within its theta position in situ and it should not get case from the matrix verb. This seems to challenge our analysis of case-checking so far. However, if we assume that case checking and morphological realization of case take place in two different steps, as illustrated in (79-84) in relation to (78), it ceases to be an exception for our analysis:


149

(87)

TP wo T’ wo AgentP T san yor m wo Ali Agent’ wo ThemeP Agent w tm CP Theme’ wo wo ß Acc Ay ek C’ VP Theme [+Case, -Ref] wo wo tm TP C V’ wo ∅ wo tk T’ V wo tm AgentP T giti-ti wo tk Agent’ wo ThemeP Agent [+case, +referentiality] wo elma Theme’ wo VP Theme [+Case, +Ref] ß acc wo ti V’ wo V ti As seen in (87) above the subject of the embedded clause checks its case in [Spec, AgentP] contrary to Aygen (2002a). Yet, similar to Aygen (2002a) it undergoes raising to embedded [Spec, TP] and embedded [Spec, CP]. This way it fails to be within the scope of the embedded T at the level of morphological case realization. However, as seen above the embedded T head still observes (78) and associates the embedded object with accusative as it is


150

the second theta role related element in the structure. As the embedded subject is not spelled out in its theta position and is not within the scope of embedded T, it cannot be morphologically realized in its theta position. The matrix T on the other hand has to mark the matrix subject with nominative and the matrix theme, namely the embedded CP, as accusative in compliance with (78b). Since there is no nominal C head for the embedded CP, the accusative morphology cannot be realized on the C head, but gets realized on the other available nominal category within the embedded CP domain, namely the embedded subject at [Spec, CP]. Thus, the matrix T causes the morphological realization of the embedded subject in accusative. Aygen (2002a), following Lees (1965) and Kennelly (1996), discusses that in Turkish embedded CPs are nominals and as such they can be case marked: (88)

Ben [CPAli-nin git-ti -in]-i sand m. I Ali-gen go-nom-3ps-acc thought “I thought that Ali has gone.”

Given that CPs in Turkish can be overtly case marked, the fact that the embedded subjects in ECM constructions get the accusative case is not surprising. Since there is no overt nominal C head in ECM constructions unlike the C head in (88), the only way for the matrix accusative case to be realized is via marking the embedded subject, which occupies the edge of CP as a potential nominal element. Therefore, we conclude that ECM constructions do not pose a challenge for the analysis we have proposed here. 2.3 Double-object constructions in Turkish Double-object constructions also support the idea that NPs in Turkish are case assigned in their theta positions therefore, do not undergo an Agree relation with higher functional categories such as TP and vP. Double-object constructions exhibit different characteristics under passivization cross-linguistically. Languages like Norwegian, Swedish, and Albanian are symmetric passive languages, allowing either the goal or theme to undergo passivization (Anagnostopoulou 2003): (89)

Swedish: a. Johan forarades en medalj Johan was-presented a medal “John was presented a medal”


151

b. Medaljen forarades Johan the-medal was-presented Johan “?*The medal was presented John.” (Anagnostopoulou 2003:124) Languages like English, Icelandic, Greek, on the other hand, are asymmetric passive languages, where only the goal can be passivized in double object constructions: (90)

a. Mary gave John a medal. b. John was given a medal. c. *The medal was given John.

This contrast in terms of passivization possibilities has been accounted for in the literature based on either case or locality. Case theoretic accounts of asymmetric passive languages mainly focus on how theme and goal are case assigned and what kind of case they receive, structural vs. inherent (Baker 1988, Larson 1988). Locality based accounts, on the other hand, explain the differences in terms of the relative ordering of theme and goal. Under such accounts, in languages like English only the higher argument, i.e. goal can be passivized, otherwise, passivization of the lower argument (theme) causes a violation of locality. Passivization of double object constructions is also asymmetric in Turkish. Goals can never be passivized, but only themes can undergo passivization: (91) a. Ay e Ali-ye bu kitabver-di. Ay e Ali-dat this book-acc give-past “Ay e gave Ali this book.” b. Bu kitap Ali-ye ver-il-di. this book Ali-dat give-pass-past “This book was given to Ali.” c. *Ali bu kitabver-il-di. Ali this book-acc give-pass-past In the following we will discuss what causes this asymmetry in Turkish. We will first take a look at the relative ordering of theme and goal in ditransitives, then focus on their passivization possibilities.


152

In Turkish double-object constructions the theme is always marked for accusative, whereas the goal is always in dative case: (92)

a. Ali kitabAy e-ye ver-di. Ali book-acc Ay e-dat give-past “Ali gave Ay e the book.” b. Ali Ay e-ye kitabver-di. Ali Ay e-dat book-acc give-past “Ali gave Ay e the book.”

(Theme>Goal)

(Goal>Theme)

Since Turkish is a scrambling language, theme and goal can occur in either order as seen in (92) above. However, as pointed out by Kornfilt (2003) the theme>goal order is much more widely preferred among native speakers. This raises the question of what the underlying order of theme and goal is in Turkish. Based on reconstruction possibilities in double-object constructions in Japanese, it is proposed that the basic order is goal>theme (Hoji 1985, Takano 1998, Yatsushiro 1999): (93) a. Taroo-ga dareka-ni dono-nimotu-mo okutta. Taro-nom someone-dat every-package sent “Taro sent someone every package.” (some>every, *every>some) b. Taroo-ga dono-nimotu-moi dareka-ni ti okutta. Taro-nom every-package someone-dat sent “Taro sent someone every package” (some>every, every>some) As seen in (93) only in the theme>goal order there is scope ambiguity, which implies that the theme is derived from a position lower than the goal. Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004), on the other hand, argue against such an analysis and propose that there are two separate base positions for dativemarked goal arguments in Japanese:24 (94)

a. high goal (possessive) … low goal (locative) … theme b. high goal (possessive) … theme … low goal (locative) (Miyagawa & Tsujioka 2004: 8)


153

The low goal is interpreted as locative, whereas the high goal is possessive. The fact that both goals can appear in the same sentence provides a clear evidence for such a proposal: (95) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni Tokyo-ni nimotu-o okutta. Taro-nom Hanako-dat Tokyo-to package-acc sent “Taro sent Hanako the package to Tokyo.” b. *Taroo-ga Tokyo-ni Hanako-ni nimotu-o okutta. c. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni nimotu-o Tokyo-ni okutta. d. *Taroo-ga nimotu-o Hanako-ni Tokyo-ni okutta. (Miyagawa &Tsujioka 2004: 9-10) As illustrated in (95a) and (95c) it is possible for the theme to occur below or above the low goal, whereas neither the low goal nor the theme can occur above the high goal as seen in (95b) and (95d) respectively. This supports the structures given in (94) above. Scope facts also argue for two separate goal positions: (96) Taroo-ga dokoka-ni dono-nimotu-mo okutta. Taro-nom some.place-to every-package sent “Taro sent every package to some place.” (some>every, every>some) If a noun denoting a location as in (96) is chosen as the goal instead of an animate possessive goal, scope ambiguity, which is not observed in (93a) arises immediately. This implies that the locative goal can reconstruct to a position lower than the theme argument. Now let us consider the reconstruction possibilities in Turkish doubleobject constructions, which is also a scrambling language. As noticed by Kural (1992), unless contrastive focus is introduced, Turkish does not allow reconstruction under scrambling. That is, in the absence of focus, Turkish scrambling exhibits A-movement effects: (97)

a. Adamlar birbirlerin-i görmü . men each other-acc saw “The men saw each other.” b. *birbirlerin-ii adamlar ti görmü . each other-acc men saw “The men saw each other.”


154 (98)

a. Adamlar birbirlerin-ii DÜN görmü . men each other-acc yesterday saw “The men saw each other yesterday.” b. Birbirlerin-ii adamlar ti DÜN görmü . each other-acc men yesterday saw “The men saw each other yesterday.”

In (97b) scrambling leads to ungrammaticality, as the scrambled object cannot reconstruct to its base position below the subject. However, in (98b) when contrastive focus is provided reconstruction is possible. Thus, when contrastive focus is present, scrambling behaves as an instance of A-bar movement, otherwise it yields A-movement effects. As seen in (99a) the goal can bind the theme when the theme follows it. When the theme is scrambled to a position where it precedes the goal, on the other hand, the goal cannot bind the theme in the surface order given in (99b), as this is an instance of A-scrambling. However, when contrastive focus is introduced into the structure, yielding A-bar movement effects, the theme can reconstruct into a position below the goal as in (99c). This implies that goal is higher than theme. Note that similar to Japanese this high goal forces a possession relation. (99) a. Her adam-ai resm-in-ii/j ver-di-m. every man-dat picture-3ps-acc give-past-1ps “I gave every man his picture.” b. Resm-in-i*i/j her adam-ai ver-di-m. picture-3ps-acc every man-dat give-past-1ps “I gave every man his picture.” c. Resm-in-ii/j her adam-ai DÜN ver-di-m. picture-3ps-acc every man-dat yesterday give-past-1ps “I gave every man his picture YESTERDAY.” Verbs like koy- “to put” also take a dative goal and an accusative theme in Turkish. However, in constructions with such verbs the goal argument always has a locative interpretation. In the neutral order the Theme precedes the goal as in (100a). A-scrambling yielding goal>theme order leads to ungrammaticality since reconstruction is not possible as shown in (100b). (100) a. Resm-ii çerçeve-sin-ei/j koy-du-m. picture-acc frame-3ps-dat put-past-1ps “I put the picture in its frame.”


155

b. Çerçeve-sin-e*i/j resm-ii koy-du-m. frame-3ps-dat picture-acc put-past-1ps “I put the picture to his/*its frame.” c. Çerçeve-sin-ei/j resm-ii BEN koy-du-m. frame-3ps-dat picture-acc I put-past-1ps “I put the picture to his/its frame.” When contrastive focus is introduced as in (100c), on the other hand, the ungrammaticality disappears and the goal can reconstruct below the theme. This argues for the opposite of the ordering we have come up with for (99), that is, unlike in (99) the goal has a position lower than the theme in (100). (101) a. Resm-in-ii çerçeve-yei/j koy-du-m. picture-3ps-acc frame-dat put-past-1ps “I put his/*its picture in the frame.” b. Resm-in-ii çerçeve-ye*i/j DÜN koy-du-m. picture-3ps-acc frame-dat YESTERDAY put-past-1ps “I put his/*its picture to the frame.” Reversing the possessor-possessee relations as in (101) cannot change the binding relations observed in (100). As seen in (101a) the goal following the theme fails to bind it. If this ordering were created by A-scrambling of the theme over the goal similar to the case in (99b), we would expect that introduction of contrastive focus would fix the ungrammaticality, as in the case of (99c). However, as seen in (101b) contrastive focus cannot save the ungrammaticality as no reconstruction is allowed. This supports the observation in (100) that there is also a goal position below the theme in Turkish similar to the case in Japanese. (102) high goalPossessive… theme … low goalLocative This ordering is supported by the availability of two goals in a single sentence. Note that (103a) is not fully acceptable and that this follows from the double-case restriction in Turkish, which does not allow presence of two constituents bearing the same morphological case within a single clause. This is what causes the degraded acceptability. However, (103b), (103c) and (103d) are definitely ungrammatical as they do not comply with the ordering in (103). Note that in Turkish contrastively focused elements can occur immediately preverbally. If the immediately preverbal elements in (103b) and (103c) are

156


interpreted as contrastively focused elements, then these sentences become more acceptable. They can be interpreted as structures derived from the high goal>theme>low goal order via A-bar movement allowing reconstruction. However, under neutral intonation they are ungrammatical. Sentences in (103d) and (103e), on the other hand, cannot be improved via contrastive focus as they violate the order in (102), even after A-bar reconstruction. (103) a. ?Ali bana kitab- Ankara-ya yollad . Ali I-dat book-acc Ankara-dat sent Ali sent me the book to Ankara. b. ??Ali bana Ankara-ya kitab- yollad . c. ??Ali kitab- Ankara-ya bana yollad . d. *Ali Ankara-ya bana kitab- yollad . e. *Ali kitab- bana Ankara-ya yollad . As discussed in the section above there are two distinct goal positions in Turkish, below and above the theme argument. Now bearing this in mind, we will take a look at the passivization possibilities of ditransitive constructions. As shown in (91) above passivization is asymmetric in double-object constructions. Dative arguments can never be passivized, but only the accusative marked arguments can. Dative in Turkish exhibits some inherent case properties. First, unlike accusative marked arguments dative case can never alternate with nominative case under passivization. Also dative case in Turkish is never available in ECM constructions. Given these properties, at first sight, both locality based accounts and case-theoretic accounts seem to explain why dative marked goals can never be passivized, leading to the asymmetry mentioned above. If we consider case theoretic accounts like Larson (1988), if dative is an inherent case associated with goals it is expected that it will be invisible for passivization. In terms of locality, on the other hand, if we are dealing with a Theme > Low goal order in a certain ditransitive construction, it is expected that the higher argument theme will be passivized. (104) [TP

[Theme [Low Goal]

If we are dealing with a ditransitive construction in the form of High Goal>Theme, on the other hand, again given its inherent case properties the


157

dative goal will not intervene in locality. Therefore, the theme following the high goal can undergo passivization. (105) [

[High Goalinherent case [Theme]

Under locality based accounts only a configuration such as (106) yields ungrammaticality. If there is an intervening argument bearing structural case properties, passivization of a lower argument leads to the violation of locality constraints (Anagnastopoulou 2003). (106) [TP

[High Goalstructural case [Theme]

Thus, at first sight Turkish ditransitives do not seem to be an exception for the cross-linguistic understanding of ditransitive constructions and can easily be accounted for on case or locality based views. As seen in the discussion of causatives, however, there is one instance of dative case in Turkish observed in causatives, which is definitely not inherent: (107) a. Ay e bu kitaboku-du. Ay e this book-acc read-past “Ay e read this book.” b. Ali Ay e-ye bu kitaboku-t-tu. Ali Ay e-dat this book-acc read-caus-past “Ali made Ay e read this book.” As seen in (107b), when transitive constructions like (107a) are causativized the agent is marked for dative due to the double case constraint (cf. Aissen 1974, Zimmer 1976, Taylan 1979, 1984, Göksel 1993, among others). Note that this dative is not associated with any theta role, highlighting its non-inherent case properties. Agent arguments occur higher in the structure than theme arguments (Marantz 1984, Kratzer 1994, among others). This implies that if a construction like (107b) is passivized, only the higher argument namely the agent should be passivized. This is indeed the case in languages like English. Consider:

158


(108) a. John made Bill eat the cake. b. Bill was made to eat the cake. c. *The cake was made to be eaten by Bill. This ungrammaticality follows from locality restrictions: (109) [

[Agentstructural case

[Theme]

Since the agent is marked for structural case and higher in the structure, it is a better candidate for movement than the Theme. Therefore, it intervenes and blocks the passivization of the theme argument. As the dative in (107b) is non-inherent and also higher in the structure, we would expect it to yield similar locality effects as what we observe in (109) and thus block the movement of the theme, which is lower in the structure. (110) a. *Ay e bu kitaboku-t-ul-du. Ay e this book-acc read-caus-pass-past “Ay e was made to read that book.” b. Bu kitap Ay e-ye oku-t-ul-du. this book Ay e-dat read-caus-pass-past “This book was caused to be read by Ay e.” However, the Turkish facts are just the opposite of what is expected. As seen in (110a) it is not possible to passivize the agent argument unlike in English. On the contrary, only the theme can be passivized, as shown in (110b). Given that both the agent and the theme bear structural case and that the theme is lower in the structure than the agent, (110b) should be a strict locality violation. However, it is fully grammatical and moreover it is the only form of passive allowed under causativization. This immediately raises the question of how Turkish can be exempt from locality restrictions which apply cross-linguistically. When the intervening argument is not dative but accusative, under causativization only the higher argument can be passivized: (111) a. Ali resm-e bak-t . Ali picture-dat look-past “Ali looked at the picture.”


159

b. Ay e Ali-yi resm-e bak-t r-d . Ay e Ali-acc picture-dat look-caus-past “Ay e made Ali look at the picture.” c. Ali resm-e bak-t r- l-d . Ali picture-dat look-caus-pass-past “Ali was made to look at the picture.” d. *Resim Ali-yi bak-t r- l-d . picture Ali-acc look-caus-pass-past “The picture was made to be looked at by Ali.” In (111a) the complement of the ver bak- “see” inherently takes dative case. When it is causativized, due to the double case constraint in Turkish, the agent is marked for accusative to avoid double dative as in (111b). Under passivization only the higher agent marked with accusative can become the subject as in (111c), replicating the English facts given in (108) whereas passivization of the dative theme is not allowed. The data in (110) and (111) contradict each other in terms of locality constraints. What is not contradictory about these two sets of data, though, is that in either case dative arguments, whether structural or inherent, resist passivization. Then the question is: Are we really dealing with movement or with morphology? If what we are dealing were simply movement, then we would expect the opposite results in (110) in compliance with locality. However, as (110) highlights that locality is not the issue here. The only way to avoid locality is to assume that there is no movement in Turkish passives, which we have proposed to be the case in Turkish in the preceding sections. As introduced above, the dependency of accusative case on the presence of nominative in a given clause has widely been noticed in the literature (Yip, Maling & Jackendoff 1987, Marantz 1991, Jónsson 1994, Harley 1995, Schütze 1997, Nakamura 1999, Burzio 2000, Mahajan 2000, Woolford 2001, 2003). This is what is observed in Turkish, too. Accusative case in Turkish can only be realized if there is a nominative marked NP within the same clause. Nominative is the mandatory case, therefore it has priority over other cases. Note that in Turkish, only the nominative can agree with the T head in finite clauses, which highlights its distinct status as a structural case. Inherent case is always retained under passivization, since it is not a dependent case in the way accusative is:

160


(112) a. Ali top-a vur-du. Ali ball-dat kick-past “Ali kicked the ball.” b. Top-a vur-ul-du. ball-dat kick-pass-past “The ball was kicked.” (113) Bütün top-lar-a vur-ul-ma-d . all ball-pl-dat kick-pass-neg-past “All the balls were not kicked.”

(*all>neg, neg>all)

As seen in (112b) under passivization the theme argument marked for inherent dative case retains its morphology. Note that as shown in (113) the dative theme also does not raise out of VP taking scope over negation, either, again highlighting the absence of movement in passives. As we have seen passivization of ditransitive constructions in Turkish does not comply with cross-linguistic locality restrictions. This suggests that ditransitive passives similar to the transitive passives discussed above are not derived via movement. In other words, passiviziation of ditransitives also does not require any checking relations with higher functional heads unlike English passivization. This is because case-checking is in situ in Turkish. Case features are available in theta position, but are not introduced by TP or vP. What enables the realization of nominative case on the theme argument, on the other hand, is simply morphology. At the level of morphology, in compliance with (78) case realization is mediated. (114) a. Ay e Ali-ye bu kitabyolla-d . Ay e Ali-dat this book-acc send-past “Ay e sent this book to Ali.” b. *Ali-ye bu kitabyolla-n-d . Ali-dat this book-acc send-pass-past “Ali was sent this book.” c. Bu kitap Ali-ye yolla-n-d . this book Ali-dat send-pass-past “This book was sent to Ali.” d. *Ali bu kitabyolla-n-d . Ali this book-acc send-pass-past


161

When due to passivization the agent is suppressed in (113a), accusative case on the theme cannot be retained, as its presence is dependent on the presence of a nominative in the structure. This explains the ungrammaticality of (113b). Dative case never alternates with nominative case, neither in passives nor in causatives. Therefore, the goal cannot get nominative and be interpreted as the subject, as illustrated by the ungrammatical example in (113d). This leaves (113c) as the only option. Since the agent is suppressed the only case that can alternate with nominative is the accusative case marked on the theme argument. Alternating accusative with nominative causes the theme to be interpreted as the subject of the sentence, since nominative case is the only case, which can agree with a finite T. Thus, asymmetry observed in ditransitives under passivization is not an asymmetry based on movement but it is a morphological asymmetry. 25 Lack of movement in ditransitives is highlighted by the scope facts as well. Consider: (115) a. [TP [NegP[ThemeP bütün çocuklar [LocPokul-a yolla]-n]-ma]-d ] all children school-dat send-pass-neg-past All children were not sent to school. (*all> not , not>all) b. [TPBütün çocuk-lari[NegP[ThemeP ti[LocPokul-a yolla-n]-ma]-d -lar] all children school-dat send-pass-neg-past-pl All children were such that they were not sent to school. (all> not , *not>all) As seen in (115) the verb yolla- “send” assigns a theme and a locative goal role. The relative order between these two arguments is theme>locative goal. In (115a) the theme cannot take scope over negation. This implies that the subject is in its theta position. Only in (115b), when the subject raises to TP, is a wide scope reading possible for the subject, which in return yields overt agreement on the verb. Now let us consider the following examples, again with the verb yolla“send”, interpreting the animate goal as a high possessive goal, rather than a low locative goal. This suggests that the high goal should be higher than the theme: (116) a. [TP[NegP[GoalP Ali-ye[ThemePbütün paket-ler yolla]-n]-ma]-d ] Ali-dat all package-pl send-pass-neg-past All the packages were not sent to Ali. (*all> not , not>all)

162


b. [TP bütün paket-leri[NegP[GoalP Ali-ye[ThemeP ti yolla]-n]-ma]-d ] all package-pl Ali-dat send-pass-neg-past All the packages were not sent to Ali. (all> not , *not>all) As seen in (116a), when the base order high goal>theme is retained, the theme always takes narrow scope with respect to negation. This suggests that it is still in situ. However, scrambling of the theme over high goal forces wide scope interpretation for the theme under neutral intonation. This implies that the theme has left its theta position. However, this does not mean that it has left its theta position for case purposes. To summarize, Turkish ditransitive constructions suggests a morphological asymmetry in contrast to locality-based asymmetries observed in languages like English, Greek, Icelandic. Passivization is not derived via movement; therefore, Turkish does not violate any of the locality constraints which hold cross-linguistically. This provides further evidence for the lack of case-driven Agree in Turkish. 3. Summary In the discussion above we have shown that NPs in Turkish are case assigned in their theta positions therefore they do not undergo an Agree relation with higher functional categories such as TP and vP. We have eliminated vP from the phrase structure of Turkish. As for TP, we have shown that it still plays a role in morphological case realization in Turkish, even though it does not take part in case-checking. The absence of case-driven Agree with higher functional projections has certain implications for the non-configurational nature of Turkish. This will be the topic of the following section. 4. Non-configurationality In the discussion above we have proposed that in Turkish there is no casedriven Agree with higher functional projections such as TP and vP, which does not exist within the phrase structure of Turkish. Absence of case-driven Agree with higher functional projections in Turkish as opposed to the situation in languages like English argues for a parametric variation between case and referentiality checking relations cross-linguistically. This has immediate implications for variations observed in the phrase structures of languages like Turkish and English. The most predominant distinction between the two types of languages is presence or absence of the free word order phenomenon in relation to the issue of (non-)configurationality.


163

Languages like English are defined as configurational, as subjects and objects always have to occupy fixed positions in the phrase structure. English strictly exhibits the SVO order, where the subject precedes the verb and the object immediately follows it. The verb and the object form a constituent to the exclusion of the subject. This is evidenced by phenomena such as VP-deletion and VP fronting in English: (117) a. John read the book and Bill did so too. b. *John read the book and Bill did so the letter. c. Nobody believed that John would read the book. Read the book, John did. d. *Nobody believed that John would read the book. John read, indeed did it. As seen in the contrast between (117a) and (117b) it is possible to elide the verb along with the object to the exclusion of the subject, however, stranding the object is not acceptable. In (117c) and (117d), on the other hand, we see that VP fronting is only allowed when both the verb and the object are fronted. These show that the verb and the object form a constituent, arguing for a VP layer, which includes only the verb and the object, excluding the subject: (118)

S ei subject VP ei V object

The configuration given in (118), where the subject occurs in a hierarchically higher position than the object underlies the subject-object asymmetries observed in languages like English. One instance of this is the superiority effect as shown in (119a-b). Another instance of this asymmetry, on the other hand, is observed in binding relations. In English, the subject DP, ccommanding the object, can bind an anaphor occurring in the object position. However, the reverse is not possible as shown in (119c-d): (119) a. Who ate what? b. *What did who eat? c. John loves himself. d. *Himself loves John.


164

Not all languages, however, exhibit such asymmetry. In other words, not all languages are configurational to that extent. The canonical example of such a case is exhibited by the Australian language Warlpiri. Warlpiri, unlike English, exhibits free word order, where any ordering of the subject, verb and the object is allowed on the condition that the tensed auxiliary comes the second in the clause as shown by Hale (1983): (120) a. Ngarrka-nku ka wawirri man-erg pres.impf kangaroo “The man is spearing the kangaroo.” b. Wawirri ka pantirni ngarrkangku. c. Pantirni ka ngarrkangku wawirri. d. Ngarrkangku ka pantirni wawirri. e. Wawirri ka ngarrkangku pantirni. f. Pantirni ka wawirri ngarrkangku.

panti-rni. spear-npast

(Hale 1983:3)

In addition, Warlpiri syntax does not exhibit any evidence for a VP node, where the verb and the object form a constituent to the exclusion of the subject: (121) *[Ngaju nya-nyi] I-abs see-nonpast The child sees me.

ka-ju kurdu-ngku. pres-1sgO child-erg (Simpson 1983:141)

These characteristics of Warlpiri imply that there is no subject-object asymmetry, but the Warlpiri phrase structure is symmetrical, where both the subject and the object occupy hierarchically equal positions: (122)

S

subject verb object Languages like Warlpiri whose phrase structures do not exhibit subjectobject asymmetries are called non-configurational. Baker (2001) distinguishes three types of non-configurationality: (i) Warlpiri-type non-configurationality as secondary predication, (ii) Mohawk-type non-configurationality as dislocation and (iii) Japanese-type non-configurationality as movement. In this


165

study, however, we will solely be concerned with the type of nonconfigurationality observed in Japanese. Let us focus briefly on some of the properties of Japanese type non-configurationality. Baker (2001) describes the Japanese-type non-configurationality as based on movement: (123) a. Taroo-ga piza-o Taro-nom pizza-acc “Taro ate pizza.” b. Piza-o Taroo-ga pizza-acc Taro-nom “Taro ate pizza.”

tabeta. ate tabeta. ate

As seen in (123) Japanese can exhibit free word order. Ross (1967) named this free word order phenomenon as “scrambling.” This name implies that word order permutations are derived from a basic underlying order through movement. Japanese is canonically assumed to be an SOV language. Saito and Hoji (1983) consider the OSV order in (123b) to be the result of an operation which scrambles the object to the head of the sentence. Based on weak crossover effects observed in Japanese, Saito and Hoji (1983) motivate a VP node for Japanese, which leads to subject-object asymmetry. Thus, they show that Japanese is a configurational language. Thus, they argue against the basegeneration account of free word order proposed by Hale (1980). The crucial point of the movement analysis for Japanese that application of movement is strictly optional as assumed by Kuroda (1988), Saito (1985), Fukui (1995), Saito and Fukui (1998), Takano (1998). Note that such kind of optionality is not assumed in the proposal made by Hale (1980). Miyagawa (1995, 1997, 2001, 2003), on the other hand, in parallel to Saito and Hoji (1983), argues for a configurational phrase structure for Japanese and derives word order permutations via movement operations. However, strictly departing from Saito and Hoji (1983) but following Hale’s account, he proposes that Japanese scrambling is not an optional operation but is EPP driven. Ishihara (2001) also argues that scrambling is not an optional operation. He argues that scrambling creates potential focus domains. This is obtained by an interaction among scrambling at the syntactic component, stress assignment at PF and calculation of focus information at LF. Scrambling affects the interpretation, as word order affects the locus of stress and in return affects the construction of the focus structure.

166


In this section we aim to discuss the issue of (non-)configurationality with respect to the parametric variation among languages in terms of case and referentiality checking, which has been proposed in the preceding section. We will first discuss the non-configurational nature of Turkish in detail then we will compare it to the configurational language English. Finally we will expand the proposal to three other languages Hungarian, Japanese and Chinese to achieve a cross-linguistic typology. 4.1 Turkish and Non-configurationality The unmarked word order in Turkish is assumed to be SOV. Turkish exhibits free word order. Constituents in Turkish can occur both pre- and post-verbally: (124) a. Ali ev-i bul-du. Ali house-acc find-past “Ali found the house.” b. Ev-i Ali bul-du. c. Ali bul-du ev-i. d. Ev-i bul-du Ali. e. Bul-du Ali ev-i. f. Bul-du ev-i Ali. This free word order phenomenon in Turkish has also been analyzed along the lines of Japanese, that is, as a case of scrambling (Taylan 1984, Kural 1992, 1993, Kelepir 2001, Aygen 2000a, 2000b, 2002a, Kornfilt 2003, among others). Kural (1992) convincingly shows that word order permutations in Turkish are created by scrambling of NPs, but not through movement of V0 into certain functional heads. Assuming a verb-movement analysis implies that Turkish does not have a uniform head-final value for the head parameter for all projections, which is not the case in Turkish, as discussed in Chapter II. Turkish does exhibit subject object asymmetries, which are specifically observed in binding relations: (125) a. Adamlar birbirlerin-i görmü . men each other-acc saw “The men saw each other.” b. *Birbirlerii adamlar- i görmü . each other men-acc saw “Each other saw the men.”


167

As seen in (125a) the subject can asymmetrically bind an anaphor in the object position, but it is not possible for the object to bind the subject in (125b). Even though there is subject-object asymmetry in Turkish, scrambling can change this asymmetry. Consider: (126) a. *[proi sekreter-i] herkes-ii arad . pro secretary-3ps everybody-acc called “Hisi secretary called everyonei” b. Herkes-ii [proi sekreter-i] arad . everybody-acc pro secretary-3ps called “Hisi secretary called everyonei” (Kural 1991:261) In (126a) the object cannot bind the pronominal within the subject in its base position. However, object preposing changes the binding relations. The surface order OSV in (126) allows the object to bind into the subject position. In the following we will first present other properties of scrambling in Turkish, in addition to the ones shown above, then briefly summarize the account of Turkish scrambling proposed by Kural (1992). Finally, we will present an alternative account of Turkish scrambling in relation to the lack of case-driven Agree with higher functional projections in Turkish. 4.1.1 Properties of scrambling in Turkish. The split nature of scrambling as an instance of A- or A-bar movement has been widely discussed in the literature (Webelhuth 1989, Mahajan 1990, Saito 1992). Mahajan (1990) distinguishes A- and A-bar scrambling based on the following characteristics: a) A-scrambling: i. yields a structure that interacts with binding theory, ii. overrides WCO effects, iii. is not reconstructable. b) A-bar Scrambling: i. does not provide new binders, ii. does not override WCO, iii. is reconstructible. Object scrambling in Turkish exhibits the characteristics of Ascrambling. A preposed object QP can bind a pronoun inside the subject as seen in (127) and a preposed object anaphor cannot reconstruct at LF as seen in (128):

168


(127) a. *[proi sekreter-i] herkes-ii arad . pro secretary-3ps everybody-acc called “Hisi secretary called everyonei” b. Herkes-ii [proi sekreter-i] arad . everybody-acc pro secretary-3ps called Hisi secretary called everyonei (Kural 1991:261) (128) a. Adamlar birbirlerin-i görmü . men each other-acc saw “The men saw each other.” b. *Birbirlerin-ii adamlar ti görmü . each other-acc men saw “The men saw each other.” Kural (1991, 1992), on the other hand, brings forth a very interesting fact about Turkish scrambling. Scrambling strictly interacts with the focus information of the sentence and in the presence of focus, scrambling displays A-bar properties: (129) a.

Adamlar birbirlerin-ii DÜN görmü . men each other-acc yesterday saw “The men saw each other yesterday.” b. Birbirlerin-ii adamlar ti DÜN görmü . each other-acc men yesterday saw “The men saw each other YESTERDAY.” (130) [proi anne-si] her çocu -ui DÜN arad . pro mother-3ps every child-acc yesterday called “Hisi mother called every childi” When there is a preverbally focused phrase, it is possible for an anaphor to reconstruct as in (128) or a quantified subject to bind pro as in (129). This raises the question whether Turkish scrambling is an instance of A- or A-bar movement. Kural (1992) claims that Turkish only exhibits A-bar scrambling, which is driven by focus. The immediately preverbal position in Turkish is considered to be the focus position as argued by Emre 1931, Erkü 1983, Taylan 1984, sever 2003, among others. Adopting this view, Kural (1992) argues that both (128b) and (129b) are instances of A-bar scrambling but the contrast in terms of grammaticality follows from the change in LF and S-structure focus relations of the two sentences. As seen in (128a), the object gets the sentential


169

focus. However, once scrambling takes place the subject occurs immediately preverbally, and receives focus as in (128b). In sentence (129a), on the other hand, it is the adverb which is focused. Scrambling does not change the focus information of the sentence, as seen in (128b), since after scrambling the adverb is still in its preverbal position. Kural (1992) claims that in Turkish there has to be one-to-one mapping between S-structure and LF focus relations for a sentence to be grammatical, that is, the focused element has to be preverbal at both levels. Since reconstruction of the object into its base position in (128) is possible, Kural (1992) analyzes this as an instance of A-bar movement. Reconstruction of the object at LF, however, does not change the focus information observed at S-structure. Thus, there is one-to-one mapping, and the sentence is fully grammatical. Kural (1992) argues that (128) can also be analyzed in parallel to (129). That is, though at first look scrambling in (128b) seems to be an instance of A-movement, it can be analyzed in parallel to (129). If it is assumed that the object undergoes A-bar movement, at Sstructure the subject will be in the focus position. Reconstruction of the object at LF will change the focus information, since at LF the object will be in preverbal position. Kural (1992) argues that this mismatch between S-structure and LF in terms of focus is what makes (128b) ungrammatical. Note that Kural (1992) argues that focus in Turkish is not identified at S-structure by some derived position and that defocused constituents must scramble to positions preceding the focused constituent. Such an account of focus challenges the standard account of focus, that is, that focus should be represented as an operator-variable pair at LF, analogous to Wh-words and QPs. This implies that focused constituents are also subject to LF raising, as shown by Chomsky (1976): (130) a. [The woman [hei loves]] betrayed Johni b. *[The woman [hei loves]] betrayed JOHNi c. *[The woman [hei loves]] betrayed everyonei (Chomsky 1976) Kiss (2002) also presents such an analysis for Hungarian focus, which is also preverbal. She argues that in Hungarian V raises to the head of FocusP. The focused XP moves to [Spec, FocusP]. “Focus functions as the value of an operator expressing exhaustive identification. This operator operates on a set of individuals present in the domain of discourse (those for which the VP can potentially hold), exhaustively identifying the subset for which the VP actually holds. The phrase in [Spec, FocusP] names the subset identified” (Kiss 2002:28):


170

(131) a. [FocPPETERi [Foc’ hivtaj [AspP fel tj ti Marit]]] Peter called up Mary-acc “It was Peter who called up Mary.” b. [FocPMARITi [Foc’ hivtaj [AspP fel tj ti Peter]]] Mary-acc called up Peter “It was Mary who Peter called up.” Kural (1992) strictly argues against such an analysis of Turkish focus. He claims that the Turkish focus position is different than Hungarian. Although a focused constituent in Hungarian can bind an anaphor, this is not possible for Turkish: (132) a. Ahmet adamlar- i birbiri-ylei tan rm . Ahmet men-acc eachother-with introduced “Ahmet introduced the men to each other.” b. *Ahmet birbiri-ylei adamlar- i tan rm . Ahmet eachother-with men-acc introduced “Ahmet introduced the men to each other.” (Kural 1992:41) Thus, Kural (1992) presents an analysis which assumes a very exceptional status for Turkish focus from a cross-linguistic perspective. This is not the only problem with Kural’s analysis. We will now turn to these and then present an alternative account of Turkish scrambling. In Section 2 we have shown that there is no case-driven Agree in Turkish. Arguments remain VP-internally. This implies a structure where [Spec, TP] is empty. Scope facts present evidence for this: (133) Bütün çocuklar o test-e gir-me-di. all children that test-dat take-neg-past “All children did not take that test.” (*all> not , not>all) In (133) the subject is in a position which is below the negation. Now consider (134), which displays opposite scope relations and also subject-verb agreement: (134)

Bütün çocuk-lar Allahtan o test-e gir-me-di-*(ler). all child-pl luckily that test-dat take-neg-past-plural “All the children luckily didn’t take that test.” (all> not , *not>all)


171

Here the subject unambiguously takes scope over negation, which implies that it has moved to a position above negation. The unambiguity of (134) implies that this movement is an A-movement, since reconstruction is not possible. The only possible position for such movement is [Spec, TP]. This is evidenced by the position of the TP level adverb allahtan “luckily”. The subject strictly precedes it, implying that it has undergone scrambling. Thus unlike what Kural (1992) proposes, the presence of such an example implies that the subject undergoes A-scrambling in Turkish.26 Now let us return to the object scrambling cases. (135) a. *[proi sekreter-i] herkes-ii arad . pro secretary-3ps everybody-acc called “Hisi secretary called everyonei” b. Herkes-ii [proi sekreter-i] arad . everybody-acc pro secretary-3ps called “Hisi secretary called everyonei” (Kural 1991:261) (136) a. Adamlar birbirlerin-i görmü . men each other-acc saw “The men saw each other.” b. *birbirlerin-ii adamlar ti görmü . each other-acc men saw “The men saw each other.” Although Kural (1992) argues that all Turkish scrambling cases are instances of A-bar-movement and the ungrammaticality of (135a) and (136b) follows from different representations of focus at S-structure and LF structure, they behave just as cases of A-movement without recourse to focus. Let us look at scope facts of object preposing cases: (137) a. Ali bütün test-ler-e gir-me-di. Ali all test-pl-dat take-neg-past “Ali did not take all the tests.” (neg> all, *all>neg) b. Bütün test-ler-e Ali gir-me-di. all test-pl-dat Ali take-neg-past “Ali did not take all the tests.” (all>neg, *neg>all) In (137a) the object unambiguously takes narrow scope with respect to negation, implying that it has not left its base position. However, in (137b) the

172


scope relations are reversed, such that the object unambiguously takes wide scope. The unambiguity in this structure also implies that object scrambling seems to be a case of A-scrambling. If there is A-scrambling of the subject as shown in (134), then it is expected for other constituents to undergo Ascrambling as well. So conceptually there is no reason for not assuming that there is A-scrambling in Turkish. However, as shown above it is true that scrambling interacts with focus and Kural’s A-bar scrambling analysis of (135-136) can be extended to (137) by arguing that reconstruction of the quantified pronoun in (137b) into its base position at LF is not possible as it changes the focus relations. In S-structure the subject being preverbal gets the focus, however, reconstruction of the object causes it to be dislocated from the preverbal focus position at LF. Therefore, the narrow scope reading for the object is not available. However, Kural’s account is not free from problems. First, given that the subject in (134) scrambles, it is not obvious why it cannot reconstruct and yield the narrow scope reading. If all instances of movement were A-bar movement, such a reconstruction would be possible. Note that this reconstruction would not alter the focus relations between S-structure and LF, so focus cannot explain the unavailability of reconstruction. This, thus, strongly challenges the A-bar account of Kural (1992). Second, Kural (1992) argues that when a binder occurs in the focus position an object anaphor cannot be scrambled as reconstruction would alter the focus relations as in (138). However, reconstruction is perfectly possible, if contrastive focus is provided for the preverbal subject as in (139). Under Kural (1992) such an example should not be possible since reconstruction of the object alters the focus relations. This really weakens Kural’s focus-based analysis: (138) a. Adamlar birbirlerin-i görmü . men each other-acc saw “The men saw each other.” b. *birbirlerin-ii adamlar ti görmü . each other-acc men saw “The men saw each other.” (139) Birbirlerin-ii ADAMLARi arad (kad nlar de il). each other-acc men called (women not) “The men called each other, not the women.”


173

Kural (1992) strictly assumes that immediately preverbal position is the focus position in Turkish. Göksel & Özsoy (2000), convincingly show that this cannot be the case. There is no single locus for focus in Turkish, but there is a focus field. The domain preceding the verb in Turkish is the focus field and any XP occurring in that domain can get focus. This implies that immediately preverbal position is simply one of the positions for focused constituents. Both wh-phrases and focused phrases can occur in that position. However, they can also occur in their base positions as in (140) or in a scrambled position as in (141), but never postverbally: (140) a. BEN Ali-ye yeme -i pi irdim. I Ali-dat food-acc cooked “I cooked the food for Ali.” b. M Ali-ye yeme -i pi irdi? who Ali-dat food-acc cooked “WHO cooked the food for Ali?” (141) a. OYA-NIN RES MLER- N- o koleksiyoncu bugün sat n alm . Oya-gen paintings-poss-acc that collector today bought. “That collector bought OYA’S PAINTINGS.” b. NE-Y o koleksiyoncu bugün sat n alm ? what-acc that collector today bought. “That collector bought WHAT today?” (142) a. Ahmet vermi *K TAB-I/*ANNEM-E /*BUGÜN/*ACELEYLE. Ahmet gave the book / to my mom / today /in a hurry b. Ahmet vermi *NE-Y /*K M-E /*NE ZAMAN/*NEREDE/ Ahmet gave what-acc /who-dat /when /where / *NASIL how (Göksel & Özsoy 2000:220-221) Based on these, Göksel & Özsoy (2000) conclude that focused phrases and wh-phrases occur in any preverbal position. Thus, there is no single focus position as claimed by Kural (1992), but a focus field, which covers the preverbal domain: (143) {XP……………….V}……..

174


Göksel & Özsoy (2000) show that both focused phrases and wh-phrases interact with sentential stress. As extensively discussed by Cinque (1993), following the work of Chomsky and Halle (1968) and Halle and Vergnaud (1987), in a sentence nuclear stress – the central prosodic stress in neutral contexts - is assigned to the lowest phrase in the syntactic tree. That is, in languages like English it is assigned to object. Note that even though the verb and the object are sisters, stress is assigned to the element, which is selected by the other, namely, to the object. Thus, head-initial languages will assign stress to the right-most lowest constituent, whereas head-final languages will assign it to the left-most element. In languages with fixed word order like English, in order to focus something other than the lowest element, nuclear stress is supplanted (or masked) with a special focus assignment. In free word order languages, on the other hand, scrambling changes the order of elements, as well as the placement of nuclear stress.27 In parallel to Cinque’s nuclear stress assignment rule under head-directionality, Göksel & Özsoy (2000) define the immediately preverbal position as the sentential stress position in Turkish – a head final language – and argue that stress is the sole indicator of focus. Therefore, in Turkish focused phrases bear stress by default. Both focused phrases and wh-phrases get sentential stress and as such they are subject to certain restrictions, when they co-occur: (144) a. OKUL-A ne zaman gid-ecek-sin? school-dat when go-fut-2ps “When will you go TO SCHOOL?” b. *Ne zaman OKUL-A gid-ecek-sin? when school-dat go-fut-2ps “When will you go TO SCHOOL?” (145) a.

M kim-i sev-iyor-mu ? who who-acc love-prog-HS-3 “WHO loves whom?” b. *Kim-i K M sev-iyor-mu ? Who-acc who love-prog-HS-3 “WHO loves whom?” (Göksel & Özsoy 2000)

The ungrammatical examples in (144) and (145) above imply that no element of non-recoverable information can occur to the left of the position of focal stress. However, not everything that occurs to the right of the focal stress


175

has to be non-recoverable information as seen in (146a) below, and items that are recoverable can precede the focal stress as in (146b): (146) a. NE ZAMAN okul-a gid-ecek-sin? when school-dat go-fut-2ps “WHEN will you go to school?” b. Okul-a NE ZAMAN gid-ecek-sin? school-dat when go-fut-2ps “WHEN will you go to school?” Based on these observations, Göksel & Özsoy (2000) propose that stress is the sole indicator of focus in Turkish and focus can be assigned to any preverbal constituent, thus it is not confined to the immediately preverbal position. In addition, they make a distinction between sentential stress and focal stress. This is evidenced by certain clitic constructions in Turkish, such as the negative suffix, which assign stress to syllables that precede them. When these clitics occur with constituents that require focal stress, they fail to assign stress to the preceding syllable, thus their stress assigning properties are subsidiary to their positions in the focus field: (147) a. Okul-a G T-me-di-n. school-dat go-neg-past-2 “You did not go to school. b. *OKUL-A G T-me-di-n. school-dat go-neg-past-2 c. OKUL-A git-me-di-n. school-dat go-neg-past-2 “You did not go TO SCHOOL” (Göksel & Özsoy 2000: 225-226) Based on the examples in (147) and also (144-145), they show that when two elements compete for stress, it is the leftmost one that bears it in Turkish. Starting from this they argue that sentential stress and focal stress should be distinct from one another. Since there is one primary stress per sentence, the distinction between the two can be blurred. The immediately preverbal position is the sentential stress position. But this position can also host focused phrases, thus it implies that this position can be used as the site for two types of stress:

176


(148) a. Ev-e G T-me-di-m. home-dat go-neg-past-1 “I didn’t go home.” b. EV-E git-me-dim. home-dat go-neg-past-1 “I didn’t go HOME.” c. EV-E git-ti-m. home-dat go-past-1 “I went HOME/home.”

(Göksel & Özsoy 2000: 226-227)

As seen in (148a), the whole proposition is negated, and the negative clitic not only assigns stress to the preceding syllable but also draws the sentential stress onto it. (148b), on the other hand, exhibits contrastive focus, and has different presuppositions than (148a). That is, it is presupposed that the speaker has gone somewhere, but the place he went is not home. (148c), on the other hand, is ambiguous. If it is assumed that the constituent gets the focal stress it is interpreted as a case of contrastive focus. However, it can also be interpreted as a neutral sentence getting the sentential focus. This implies that the immediately preverbal position is not the focus position in Turkish, but the locus of sentential stress. Going back to Kural (1992), given the above facts for focus, the claim that the focus position is immediately preverbal in Turkish is too simplistic. As seen above, focus can float in the preverbal domain, therefore it is not possible to argue that focus in Turkish is solely restricted to the preverbal domain. Also the claim that there is no focus raising in Turkish contradicts with the crosslinguistic understanding of focus in the sense of operator-variable based accounts of focus. Therefore, we conclude that it is not possible to explain Turkish scrambling as an instance of A-bar movement solely relying on preverbal focus position as proposed by Kural (1992). This takes us back to the A-movement possibility of scrambling. We agree with the data that Kural (1992) presents, that is, presence of a preverbal focused element triggers A-bar scrambling and enables reconstruction. But as shown above in the absence of a contrastive focus scrambling behaves simply as a case of A-movement. Therefore, we argue that Turkish scrambling is along the lines of Mahajan (1990) that it can be realized either as a case of Amovement or as A-bar movement.28 In the following we will discuss both types of scrambling in Turkish in turn. Now let us take a look at the motivations of A-movement in Turkish. Similar to Turkish, Japanese scrambling exhibits both A-movement and A-bar


177

movement (Saito 1992, Tada 1992, Miyagawa 2001, 2003, among others). Consider the examples from Miyagawa (2001): (149) a. [TPZen in-gai [VP ti sono tesuto-o uke-nakat-ta]] SOV all-nom that test-acc take-neg-past “All did not take that test.” (all> not , *not>all) b. sono tesuto-o zen in-ga uke-nakat-ta. OSV that test-acc all-nom take-neg-past “That test, all did not take.” (not>all, all> not) b’ [TPsono tesuto-oj [VP zen in-ga tj uke-nakat-ta]] (not>all) b” [CPsono tesuto-o [TPzen in-gai [VP ti uke-nakat-ta]]] (all>not) As there is EPP requirement on T, as seen in (149a) the subject has to move to [Spec, TP] and checks EPP, which unambiguously leads to wide scope for the subject over negation. This indicates that the subject undergoes Amovement to [Spec, TP] such that it cannot reconstruct back to its VP-internal position taking narrow scope. Miyagawa (2001) proposes two different derivations for the ambiguity in (149b). In the case where negation, takes wide scope over the subject, the object A-moves to [Spec, TP] to check off EPP, leaving the subject in situ below negation. In the case where the subject takes wide scope over negation, on the other hand, first the subject A-moves to [Spec, TP] and checks EPP, then the object undergoes A-bar movement to a higher projection, again, leading to OSV order. Miyagawa (2001) shows that scrambling in Japanese is EPP driven and can occur either as A-movement or A-bar movement. As discussed above, EPP in Turkish does not need to be checked via Merge/Move XP but by Move X0. Considering the Turkish counterpart of the Japanese data in (149), it is seen that Turkish exhibits opposite scope facts: (150) a. Bütün çocuklar o test-e gir-me-di. SOV all children that test-dat take-neg-past “All children did not take that test.” (*all> not , not>all) b. O test-dat bütün çocuklar gir-me-di. OSV that test-dat all children take-neg-past “That test, all children did not take.” (*all> not, not>all) c. Bütün çocuk-lar Allahtan o test-e gir-me-di-*(ler). all child-pl luckily that test-dat take-neg-past-plural “All the children luckily didn’t take that test.”(all>not, not>all)

178


In (150a) unlike the Japanese case in (149a) the subject unambiguously takes narrow scope which implies that the subject does not leave its base position below negation. In (150b), on the other hand, Turkish does not exhibit ambiguity unlike the Japanese example in (149b) thus, the subject unambiguously takes narrow scope just like the case in (150a). This again implies that neither in (150a) nor in (150b) does the subject leave its base position below negation. However, when we look at (150c) we see that the scope relation given in (150a) and (150b) is reversed that the subject unambiguously takes wide scope over negation. This implies that the subject has undergone A-movement to [Spec, TP] as it is not possible to have ambiguity via reconstruction. That the subject is in [Spec, TP] is also evidenced by the agreement between the subject and the verb, which is not seen in (150a) and (150b). This shows that the subject and the verb are in a Spec-Head agreement relation. Going back to (150b), given that the subject is in situ, then the question is where the object is and what kind of movement it has undergone. One crucial aspect of this data is that unlike what Kural (1992) claims, given neutral intonation there is no contrastive focus interpretation for the immediately preverbal subject. Therefore, example (150b) cannot be analyzed as movement of the object into the CP domain. Note that a contrastive focus reading is possible by putting focal stress on the subject. However, this reverses the scope relations. The subject takes wide scope over negation implying that it is in [Spec, TP] and the object gets scrambled to a higher position: (151) O test-e BÜTÜN ÇOCUKLAR gir-me-di, BÜTÜN that test-dat all children take-neg-past all BÜYÜKLER gir-di. adults take-past “It was not ALL THE CHILDREN who took that test, but it was ALL THE ADULTS.” (all> not, *not>all) Movement of scrambled constituents into [Spec, TP] is not motivated by the EPP feature in Turkish, since EPP is checked by verb movement, as discussed above. Therefore, [Spec, TP] does not need to be filled in Turkish. Then what is the motivation of such a movement into [Spec, TP] in Turkish? As extensively argued in the literature (Taylan 1984, Sezer 1991, Kornfilt 1997, Aygen 2002a among others), scrambling is only allowed for referential/specific NPs in Turkish. In other words, only referential/specific NPs can occupy [Spec, TP] position in Turkish. In topic prominent languages


179

like Hungarian, not all sentences have to have the topic position be filled. NPs functioning as topics, have to be specified as [+referential/+specific] (Kiss 2003). In languages like English the external argument, which fills [Spec, TP], functions both as the grammatical subject and as the logical subject/topic of predication. Kiss (2003) proposes that in Hungarian the logical subject/topic function can be fulfilled by any argument of the verb, that is, it does not need to be fulfilled by the external argument. This topic establishes a SubjectPredicate relation with the rest of the clause. Kuno (2003) also proposes that Ascrambling in Japanese yields a subject-predicate relation. Along the lines of Kiss (2003) and Kuno (2003), we also propose that movement into [Spec, TP] yields a topic/subject-predication configuration in Turkish.29 (152) a. Her çocuk kitabokudu. every child book-acc read “Every child read the book.” b. Kitabher çocuk okudu. book-acc every child read “Every child read the book” (=The book was such that every child read it) Establishment of this subject-predicate relation in Turkish is not obligatory, as [Spec, TP] may not be projected at all. However, there are languages where this is obligatory. Pivots in Austronesian languages can be considered as an example of this. In Austronesian an argument NP, which is always referential/specific, has to move to the pivot position and get marked with special morphology. (153) illustrates the pivot in Tsou (M. Chang: p.c.). In the examples below the referential/specific arguments in brackets act as the pivot of the sentence: (153) a. m-o mo-si to-emi to-pangka o-[Agent Pasuya] AV-Rea AV-put CS-rice.wine CS-table R-Pasuya “Pasuya, was such that she put the rice wine on the table.” b. is-i si-a to-pangka to-pasuya o-[Theme emi] Rea-3s put-TV CS-table CS-pasuya R-rice.wine “The rice wine was such that Pasuya put it on the table.” c. is-i si-i to-emi to-pasuya ‘o-[location panka] Rea-3s put-LV CS-rice.wine CS-pasuya R-table “The table was such that Pasuya put the rice wine on it.”

180


Based on cross-linguistic evidence we argue that A-scrambling in Turkish is driven by the need to establish a topic/subject-predication relation. Note that such a proposal is fully in accordance with Miyagawa (2004), who argues that in Japanese movement is triggered by EPP, which works in tandem with Focus feature. Focus is defined either as informational, that is, it involves what is not presupposed in a topic-focus (theme-rheme) structure or as identificational, which expresses exhaustive identification carrying over to the notion of contrastiveness as discussed by Kiss (1998). Miyagawa (2004) proposes that if the relevant focus feature, driving the movement of a phrasal category into [Spec, TP] is informational focus, then the leftmost element in [Spec, TP] is interpreted as the topic and the remainder of the sentence provides new information about this topic. This is solely compatible with the proposal we have introduced for Turkish. Including A-scrambling into Turkish grammar also presents an alternative solution for certain scopal ambiguities. Turkish is a language where quantifiers always take surface scope, hence there is no scope ambiguity observed between two quantified NPs (Zidani-Ero lu 1997b, Göksel 1998, Aygen 1999, 2002b, Kelepir 2001). The only ambiguous case in Turkish is the example given below, where there is scope ambiguity between the distributivity denoting universal quantifier and the specific indefinite: (154) Her çocuk bir kitabokudu. every child one book-acc read i. “Every child read a specific book.” ∃> ∀ ii. “Every child read a different book out of a definite set of books.” ∀>∃ Previous studies attempt to analyze this data based on the QR of the numeral quantifier bir “one” (Aygen 2002b). However, we propose an alternative account, which proposes that this ambiguity is not created by QR of the specific indefinite but by the A-movement (topicalization) of the distributive subject into [Spec, TP] in Turkish similar to the proposals by Hornstein (1995) and Kitahara (1996) for QR effects under A-movement. We argue that the ambiguity in (154) rises from the following representations, which are distinct from each other: (154’) a. [Spec, TP ∃ [AgentP Her çocuk [ThemePbir kitabokudu.]]] b. [Spec, TP Her çocuk ∃ [AgentP t [ThemePbir kitabokudu.]]] A-movement


181

As the derivation in (154a’) shows, the narrow scope reading for the subject is due to when it does not undergo A-scrambling into [Spec, TP] and remains in its base position which is within the scope of existential closure. However, the wide scope reading is due to A-scrambling of the distributive subject, which takes it out of the scope of existential closure, hence, follows the wide scope. Thus, we conclude that it is possible to capture the scope relations through the A-scrambling of the subject without making recourse to QR of indefinites. This is in compliance with the account of specific indefinites we have presented in Chapter II. A-scrambling of the object into [Spec, TP] always leads to a wide scope reading for the indefinite, which is because the distributive subject remains within the scope of the existential closure: (155) [TPBir kitab- i ∃ [AgentP her çocuk [ThemeP ti okudu.]]] one book-acc every child read “Every child read a specific book.” ∃> ∀ (Unambiguous) It is known that scrambling is subject to certain locality restrictions. As seen in the case of Turkish, it is possible to scramble the object into [Spec, TP] over the subject. This implies that the subject in its base position does not block the movement of the object. We will return to this issue in section 4.1.2, where we propose an account for the non-configurational nature of Turkish based on case and referentiality and the lack of case-driven Agree in Turkish. Now let us turn to A-bar scrambling in Turkish. As discussed above, Kural (1992) introduces cases where the presence of contrastive focus allows reconstruction in scrambling, in other words, A-bar scrambling: (156) a. Birbirlerin-i adamlar DÜN görmü . each other-acc men yesterday saw “The men saw each other YESTERDAY.” b. [proi anne-si] her çocu -ui DÜN arad . pro mother-3ps every child-acc yesterday called “Hisi mother called every childi” As shown by Göksel & Özsoy (2000) the domain preceding the focused element in Turkish can only express recoverable (old) information, in other words, pre-focus elements act as topics. Both topic and focus are represented within the CP domain, which is taken to be the landing-site for A-bar

182


movement (Rizzi 1997). The elements preceding the focused adverb in (156) above behave as though they are in the CP domain. Thus, they can undergo reconstruction into their base positions. À la Göksel & Özsoy (2000) both the sentential stress and the focal stress falls on the adverb in (156). Based on this we propose that introduction of contrastive focus immediately preverbally in Turkish maps the non-focused constituents into the CP-domain. Let us consider the derivation of (156a) and (156b), which is represented as (156a’) and (156b’) below respectively: (156a’) [TopPbirbirlerin-ij[TopPadamlari[FocPDÜN][TP[Spec, AgenP ti[Spec, ThemePtj görmü ]]]

(156b’) [TopPannesij[TopPher.çocu -ui[FocPDÜN][TP[Spec, AgenP ti[Spec,ThemeP tjgörmü ]]]

Assuming that FocusP is the lowest projection within the CP domain in Turkish, the contrastively focused element occurs at its Spec, and checks off the focus feature. If the sentential focus is also to be realized on this focused element, this causes it to be immediately preverbal. This triggers the displacement of all the intervening constituents into the relevant projections, such as TopicP, within the CP domain. As this movement is an instance of Abar movement, then the displaced constituents can reconstruct back into their base positions. This fixes the binding relations. Introduction of a contrastively focused element also causes (155) to become ambiguous. The unambiguous example in (155) above is derived via A-scrambling. We repeat it below as (157b) for comparison to (157a): (157) a. Bir kitab- i her çocuk ti okudu. one book-acc every child read Every child read a specific book. (∃> ∀, *∀>∃) b. Bir kitabher çocuk DÜN okudu. one book-acc every child YESTERDAY read i. “Every child read a specific book YESTERDAY.” ∃> ∀ ii. “Every child read a different book out of a definite set YESTERDAY.” ∀>∃


183

As the discussion of (154) showed above the wide and narrow scope interpretations of the universal quantifier her “every” has to do with its A-bar position. (157b’) i. [TopPBir kitab- i[TopP her çocukj[FocPDÜN[Spec, TP ∃[AgentP tj [ThemeP ti okudu]]] A-bar A-bar movement

ii. [TopPBir kitab i[TopPher.çocuk j[FocPDÜN[Spec,TP ti ∃[AgentP ti [ThemePtj okudu]]] A-bar

A-movement

A-bar movement

We also argue that the ambiguity in (157b) also follows from two distinct derivations. In the case of narrow scope for the universal subject in (157bi’), the subject is displaced from its base position within the scope of ∃. Hence reconstruction creates narrow scope. In (157bii’), on the other hand, the subject first undergoes A-movement to [Spec, TP] above ∃, then, is displaced into the CP domain via A-bar movement. Hence, reconstruction can only lower it into [Spec, TP] above ∃, and the wide scope follows. The ambiguity observed in (154) is still retained in the presence of contrastive focus, as seen in (158). Example (158’) illustrates the derivation of the ambiguity: (158) Her çocuk bir kitabDÜN okudu. every child one book-acc YESTERDAY read i. “Every child read a specific book YESTERDAY.” ii. “Every child read a different book out of a definite set YESTERDAY.

∃> ∀ ∀>∃

(158’) a. [TopPHer çocuki[TopPbir kitab j[FocPDÜN[Spec, TP ∃[AgentP ti[ThemePtj okudu] A-bar A-bar movement

184


b. [TopPHer çocuki[TopPbir kitab j[FocPDÜN[Spec, TP ti ∃[AgentP ti [ThemePtj okudu] A-bar A-movement A-bar

In (158’a) the subject is displaced from its theta position below ∃, so when it reconstructs it takes narrow scope. In (158’b), on the other hand, the subject first A-moves to [Spec, TP], which is above ∃, and then it is displaced into the CP domain. Thus, when it reconstructs it cannot be lowered back into its theta position hence it takes only wide scope. To summarize, following Kural’s proposal regarding contrastive-focusdriven A-bar movement, we claim that when both sentential and focal stress are realized on a single constituent, contrastive focus causes all of the inbetween constituents to become dislocated and A-bar move into the CP domain.30, 31, 32 4.1.2 Why is scrambling possible in Turkish? In this section, we will address the question of why scrambling is possible in languages like Turkish but not available in others like English. Our focus will be the absence of case-driven Agree in Turkish and its implications for scrambling. We will argue that absence of case-driven Agree with higher functional categories for the establishment of argumenthood is what yields a non-configurational phrase structure in languages like Turkish. First, we will take a look at the configurational nature of English then discuss the nature of nonconfigurationality in Turkish. As discussed above English is a configurational language, which exhibits obvious subject-object asymmetries. In terms of establishment of argumenthood, English differs from Turkish. Firstly, it is a language with morphological determiners. This provides strong evidence for the presence of DPs. Secondly, it exhibits syntactic phenomena which involve case checking relations between DPs and the functional categories TP and vP, such as ECM, raising, passive and unaccusative constructions. In English DPs introduce the referentiality feature to NPs and case features are introduced by TP and vP. This implies that English exhibits case-driven Agree with higher functional projections in the establishment of argumenthood. Note that in English NPs are merged into their theta positions already embedded under DPs. That is, NPs are introduced with the referentiality feature in their theta positions, thus fulfill the first requirement on argumenthood. Then, to meet the second requirement on argumenthood,


185

namely case, they undergo a checking relation with higher functional heads such as TP and vP via Agree: (159)

XP Case position wo X’ wo X YP Theta position Agree [+case] wo Merge àDP Y’ [+ref] wo Y

The configuration in (159) above implies that in English case and referentiality features are introduced in different XP domains. The referentiality feature is assigned in theta positions (YP in 159), whereas case is assigned within the domain of a higher functional projection (XP in 159). That is, argumenthood for an NP is established by forming a chain between the theta position and the case position. Thus, a typical transitive sentence is derived as the following in English: (160) TP wo T’ wo T vP [+case] wo v’ wo v AgentP [+case] wo Merge àDP[+ref] Agent’ Agree wo Agent ThemeP wo Merge àDP[+ref] Theme’ Agree wo Theme VP V


186

Both case and referentiality features are introduced by independent functional heads in separate XP domains. Thus, argumenthood for NPs in English is established by chain formation via Agree. What is crucial at this point is that, argumenthood establishment in English follows not only the theta hierarchy à la the Neo-Davidsonian model but also the hierarchy between TP and vP. TP and vP are strictly hierarchically ordered with respect to one another, which implies a configurational structure. Thus, in English establishment of argumenthood is accomplished in a configurational manner. As discussed in section 2, the main difference between languages like English and Turkish is how argumenthood is established for NPs, that is, the way NPs are assigned case and referentiality features. In English case and referentiality features are introduced at different projections, i.e. referentiality is introduced by DPs at theta positions, whereas case is introduced by TP or vP. NPs that are referentiality assigned in their theta positions by DPs should establish an Agree relation with TP and vP for case. This implies that NPs are granted argument status through a chain formed between case and theta positions. In Turkish, on the other hand, we have shown that the functional categories vP and TP do not play a role in case assignment. Case and referentiality are co-dependent features and as such they are introduced in theta positions by theta role introducing functional heads: (161)

XP Theta Position wo MERGEàNP X’ wo X [+case, +ref]

This implies that case and referentiality features are checked within the domain of a single functional projection. Thus, no case-driven Agree relation is formed with higher functional categories in Turkish. Establishing argumenthood in theta positions takes us back to the NeoDavidsonian phrase structure which we introduced above. In this model, verbs do not have any arguments associated with them in the lexicon but arguments are introduced into the structure by theta-role introducing functional heads. Verbs pick up their arguments by moving into these functional heads. Semantically, this is represented as in (162). All theta roles are introduced via event identification, which count equally in terms of the establishment of event structure. Thus, within the Neo-Davidsonian model all theta roles count the


187

same with respect to their relation to the verb as shown by the formula given in (162): (162) λxλyλe[verb (e) & Theme(x)(e) & Agent (y)(e)] Since in Turkish NPs acquire full argument status in their theta positions without Agree with higher functional projections, all arguments remain in their theta positions, which have equal relations with the verb in compliance with the Neo-Davidsonian model. When the verb moves to a higher functional projection such as T, even though theta role introducing functional heads observe the theta-hierarchy, all arguments count as equidistant from the V/T complex because they all have an equivalent relation to the verb. This is what causes the flat phrase structure effect observed in Turkish, which is taken to be a case of non-configurationality. Given such a structure where all arguments have an equal relation to the verb, any argument can be attracted to [Spec, TP] once the verb moves to T, since they will all be equidistant. Thus, even though arguments are hierarchically ordered following the theta hierarchy, as they count equally in terms of their relation with the verb, they are taken to be equidistant from the T head.33 In languages like English, however, it is not possible to talk about such kind of equidistance for arguments. In English, as well, theta roles are introduced by independent functional projections within the Neo-Davidsonian model. However, argumenthood for NPs is not established in their theta positions, since only the referentiality feature is available in this position. NPs in English must form an Agree relation with TP and vP to get case and thus satisfy the two requirements on argumenthood. The crucial point here is that case assigning functional categories TP and vP are strictly hierarchical (TP>vP). Forming chains with these heads to establish argumenthood causes arguments such as subject and object to be ordered hierarchically with respect to each other. Even though the verb raises to T, its arguments cannot be equidistant, since they are bound in chains formed by case-driven Agree with hierarchically ordered functional heads. This is what creates the configurational structure of English. The general idea behind this is that if in a language case and referentiality are checked within the domain of a single projection, that is, if there is no case-driven Agree with higher functional heads, it exhibits a nonconfigurational phrase structure. However, if there is case-driven Agree with hierarchically ordered functional projections, then the language is strictly configurational. Note that in section 2.1 we have proposed that Turkish lacks

188


vP as the functional projection responsible for case assignment. This is also very parallel to the proposal made by Hale (1980) that non-configurational languages lack the VP node. In the absence of a VP node all arguments can ccommand each other and thus a flat structure effect is created. Therefore, there is no hierarchical difference among arguments of a verb. The account proposed here, on the other hand, takes a further step and presents an explanation for the intuition behind Hale (1980)’s proposal. Lack of an identifiable VP (or in our terms vP) node follows from the absence of case-checking relations with higher functional heads. This analysis is very similar to Miyagawa (2001)’s analysis for Japanese scrambling. Miyagawa (2001), as proposed earlier by Saito and Hoji (1983) assumes that Japanese exhibits subject-object asymmetry. He proposes that free word order is a consequence of an interaction between EPP checking and V-to-T raising in Japanese. V-to-T movement makes both the subject and the object equidistant, thus, either the subject or the object can move into [Spec, TP] to check the EPP feature, leading to either SOV or OSV order. Miyagawa (2001) argues that case – be it nominative, accusative or inherent dative – is licensed by T and the morphological realization of case agrees with T. This is what makes it possible for EPP on T to attract either of the arguments into [Spec, TP]. Although the subject and the object are hierarchically ordered, as their morphological case is licensed by T – the head of the clause – a non-configurationality affect arises. This makes Japanese comply with the definition of non-configurationality proposed by Hale (1980). He argues that what distinguishes Japanese from other languages such as Romance, where V-to-T is also observed is the presence of morphological case which is strictly licensed by T. In the analysis we propose, on the other hand, V-to-T movement still plays a role but what is most crucial is that argumenthood for NPs is established in theta positions, which count equal in terms of the event structure. This is the main reason underlying the flat structure effect.34 4.2 A Typology based on Case and Referentiality In Section 4.1 we proposed that the non-configurational phrase structure of Turkish is a consequence of the lack of case-driven Agree relation with higher functional projections. There is no vP in Turkish and TP does not play a role in case assignment. Since argumenthood is not established in relation to strictly hierarchically ordered functional projections (TP>vP), all NPs acquire argumenthood in their theta positions, which count equally in relation to the event structure. This yields a flat structure effect. Absence of vP, which


189

provides object case, can be interpreted as being parallel to Hale (1980)’s argument that lack of VP (vP in our terms) yields a non-configurational phrase structure. English, on the other hand, exhibits a strictly configurational phrase structure. We have proposed that this is due to the way case and referentiality features are introduced in English. Case and referentiality are introduced within the domain of separate XP projections. Referentiality is available in theta positions, whereas case is introduced at the TP and vP levels. This requires an Agree relation to be established between the two XP domains. Since argumenthood is established in relation to the hierarchically ordered functional heads TP>vP via Agree chains, this yields a configurational phrase structure. Therefore, unlike Turkish. English does not allow scrambling, and exhibits superiority effects: (163) a. English: b. Turkish:

i. Who ate what? ii. *What did who eat? i. Kim ne-yi yedi? who what-acc ate “Who ate what?” ii. Ne-yi kim yedi?

This variation in argumenthood establishment between English and Turkish implies that case-driven Agree with higher functional projections is not a universal pattern in the establishment of argumenthood. Languages can vary based on the functional categories they have associated with case and referentiality features and as well the domain in which these features are checked. This argues for a parametric variation. Based on this, regarding nonconfigurationality we would like to propose the following parameter. (See also Öztürk 2004): (164) Languages without case-driven Agree are non-configurational. Languages exhibiting case-driven Agree, on the other hand, exhibit a configurational phrase structure. In accordance with (164) whether a language will display configurational or non-configurational properties can be anticipated based on what functional categories and what XP domains are available in the introduction of case and referentiality features for argumenthood.35

190


This parameter can also explain why pseudo incorporation is possible in a language like Turkish but not in English. As discussed extensively in Chapter II Turkish exhibits pseudo incorporation very productively. In pseudoincorporation the predicate NP in the [NP+V] complex can check off the case feature on theta role bearing functional heads via verb movement. This case checking causes the predicate NP to be interpreted as bearing the theta role that the functional head introduces. This is because introduction of the case feature satisfies the visibility condition and enables the pseudo-incorporated NP to be associated with the theta role. In English, on the other hand, pseudoincorporation is not allowed. This follows from the absence of case feature in theta positions in English. As we discussed above the case feature is not available in theta positions but is introduced at the level of TP and vP. Since case checking does not take place within the projection of theta role introducing functional categories, but in higher projections such as TP or vP, the NP within the predicate complex [NP+V] cannot be associated with the theta role introduced by the theta role bearing head. As at that point in the derivation no case will be assigned to the NP, it will not be visible for theta role assignment. No NP will be associated with any theta role in the structure. This implies that there will not be a NP forming a proper chain between a theta position and a case position. Thus, this will lead to ungrammaticality. This implies that since case and referentiality checking is done in different functional projections by chain formation, NPs which need to be case marked have to be introduced to the Spec positions of theta role bearing functional projections. This is a position only allowed for DPs. Therefore it is not possible to find pseudo incorporation in languages like English where argumenthood is established through Agree with higher functional projections.36 Going back to the parameter introduced in (164), if a language exhibits case-driven Agree with hierarchically ordered higher functional heads, the language will exhibit a strictly configurational phrase structure, full subjectobject asymmetry, no scrambling, no superiority effects and also no pseudoincorporation. If there is no case-driven Agree then the language will exhibit the opposite features. In the following, we will take a look at three typologically unrelated languages in relation to the parameter introduced in (164). We will first introduce Hungarian, then Japanese and finally Chinese. Our aim is to show that determining whether there is case-driven Agree or not in these languages will explain the characteristics of their phrase structures. This will in return introduce a typology based on case and referentiality features in the establishment of argumenthood.


191

4.2.1 Hungarian. Hungarian, similar to Turkish, also exhibits a nonconfigurational structure. This aspect of Hungarian has been analyzed in several ways in the literature. Kiss (1992, 1994, 2002) analyzes Hungarian as having a bipartite structure with a flat, non-configurational propositional content dominated by a configurational left periphary (TopP>TopP>DistP>DistP>FP). The non-configurational VP domain, which contains all arguments is also called PredP (Kiss 2002): (165) [VP=PredPKüldött Péter egy levelet Márianak.] sent Peter a letter-acc Mary-dat “Peter sent a letter to Mary.”

(Kiss 2002:27)

Marácz (1989, 1990) and Horvath (1986, 1995), on the other hand, argue for a configurational VP structure for Hungarian, as they claim Hungarian exhibits subject-object asymmetry, in other words, an argument hierarchy. Kiss (2002), on the other hand, shows that the argument hierarchy in Hungarian is not based on grammatical functions such as subjecthood or objecthood but is based on thematic hierarchy. In Hungarian “the binder must be thematically more prominent than the anaphor” (Kiss 2002: 37): (166) a. Jánost önmaga aggasztja a legkevésbé.(Kiss 2002: 37) John-acc himself-nom worries the least “Himself worries John the least.” b. ?János önmaga aggasztja a legkevésbé. John-nom himself-acc worries the least “John worries himself the least.” As shown by Kiss (2002) in the case of psych verbs taking a theme subject and an experiencer object, the binding relation is favored if the object binds the subject. This follows from the fact that thematically the experiencer is higher than the theme. This shows that binding facts in Hungarian follow the thematic hierarchy, rather than grammatical functions, which would normally argue for subject-object asymmetries. Thus, Kiss (2002) argues for a nonconfigurational VP for Hungarian. Kiss (2002) clearly states that in Hungarian DPs do not leave their theta positions within PredP to move into higher functional projections such as TP due to checking of case features. Such a movement is triggered for non-casedriven reasons such as topicalization.37


192

These facts about Hungarian imply that just like in Turkish in Hungarian, too, NPs acquire argument status in their theta positions. As shown by Kiss (2002), NPs do not establish case-driven relations with VP external functional projections. Therefore, we conclude that Hungarian should also be a language without case-driven Agree. Arguments get both case and referentiality features within the domain of a single XP projection in their theta positions, and this underlies why it behaves like a non-configurational language in accordance with (68). Now let us consider what functional categories are available for case and referentiality features in Hungarian. Unlike Turkish, Hungarian has morphological evidence for the presence of an independent functional category solely associated with referentiality, namely DP. Hungarian also has overt case morphology. Thus, in Hungarian arguments are morphologically marked for the two crucial features for argumenthood, namely case and referentiality: (167) János vágja a fa-t. J cuts the wood-acc “Janos cuts the wood.” Although it has developed independent functional categories for case and referentiality like English, Hungarian exhibits properties which are very similar to Turkish, since argumenthood for NPs in Hungarian is also established in their theta positions. That is, both case and referentiality features should be available within the domain of theta role introducing functional heads. Thus, we propose the following configuration in (168) for Hungarian, which is very similar to the one proposed for Turkish in (161) above: (168)

XP wo DP à [+ref] X’ wo X [+case]

Theta Position

Similar to English, in Hungarian NPs are merged into the structure embedded under DPs. That is, they are assigned a referentiality feature in their base positions. However, unlike English but similar to Turkish, case checking in Hungarian also takes place within the domain of theta positions. This means that even though Hungarian has separated the assignment of case and referentiality by associating them with different functional categories,


193

assignment of these features still takes place within the same maximal projection. This further implies that in Hungarian, too, similar to Turkish, there should not be any motivation to establish case-driven Agree with higher functional projections. This provides an immediate explanation for the observations made by Kiss (2002) above that all arguments can remain in situ in Hungarian and binding relations follow the theta-hierarchy given the NeoDavidsonian model.38 As expected under (164) Hungarian is also a free word-order language and does not exhibit superiority effects: (169) a. Ki jelentett fel kit? who denounced VM whom “Who denounced whom?” b. Kit jelentett fel ki?

(Kiss 2002)

Given the lack of case-driven Agree with higher functional heads such as TP and vP in Hungarian, it is expected to have a non-configurational phrase structure in Hungarian similar to Turkish under the proposal made here. As argumenthood is established in theta positions, all arguments will have an equal relation with the verb and thus follows the free word order facts. Furthermore, given that case and referentiality features are available in theta positions, under (164) it is expected that Hungarian should have pseudoincor-poration. This is indeed the case. Fully in parallel to Turkish, Hungarian allows pseudo-incorporation of external and internal arguments with transitive, unergative and unaccusative predicates (Farkas & de Swart 2003): (170) a. Janos [fa-t vag] (Theme incorporation) J wood-acc cuts “Janos does wood-cutting.” b. Janos-t kutya harapdalja. (Agent incorporation: transitive) J-acc dog bite-frequentative-3sg “Janos underwent dog-biting.” c. Madar e'nekel (a fa'-n) (Agent incorporation: unergative) bird-nom sings the tree-on “There is bird-singing on the tree.” In pseudo-incorporation the [NP+V] complex formed via pseudoincorporation undergoes head movement. As theta role introducing functional heads bear the case feature, when the [NP+V] complex raises to these heads, the pseudo-incorporated NP checks the case feature thus becomes visible for

194


theta role assignment. This is what causes the pseudo-incorporated NP to be interpreted as associated with specific theta roles. The analysis proposed for Turkish pseudo incorporation above, is fully applicable to pseudo incorporation in Hungarian. What is crucial in Hungarian pseudo incorporation is that case morphology is available but determiners are not. This implies that similar to Turkish pseudo incorporation happens in the absence of the referentiality feature and explains why DPs are not available in pseudo incorporation. Note that in Hungarian DPs follow the verb, whereas in pseudo-incorporation NPs precede it. In Hungarian lexical categories are head-final, whereas functional categories are head-initial (Kiss 1987). This supports the pseudo-incorporation analysis proposed here that pseudo-incorporation is a kind of complex predicate formation deprived of any functional projections in the form of [NP+V], where a predicative NP forms a complex predicate with the verb head. Parallel to the case checking in pseudo incorporation cases in Turkish, we propose that the [NP+V] complex undergoes head raising and the NP is associated with the case feature on the theta role introducing functional head in the absence of referentiality. This is why case morphology is available on NPs in pseudo-incorporation cases in Hungarian. Note that in Turkish unlike Hungarian the presence of case morphology on pseudo-incorporated NPs is not allowed, since case encodes referentiality. In Hungarian, on the other hand, since morphologically these features are represented separately, case morphemes do not imply referentiality and thus pseudo-incorporated NPs can bear case morphology. As the discussion above shows, Hungarian is fully in accordance with the predictions made under (164) for a language without case-driven Agree. This explains why it is a non-configurational language that exhibits scrambling, theta-role based binding relations, as well as pseudo-incorporation. 4.2.2 Japanese. As we have introduced above, Japanese is assumed to be the canonical example of movement based non-configurationality (Baker 2001). As shown in Section 4.1 Japanese exhibits both A- and A-bar scrambling and is exempt from superiority effects: (171) a. dare-ga nani-o tabe-ta no? who-nom what-acc eat-past-Q “Who ate what?” b. nani-o dare-ga tabe-ta no?

(M. Kuno: p.c.)


195

In the following we aim to show that these properties of Japanese also follow from the non-configurationality parameter we have proposed in (164) above. That is, Japanese is also a language without case-driven Agree. Argumenthood is established in theta positions, as case and referentiality features are available in these positions. This is the main reason for nonconfigurationality effects seen in Japanese. Japanese is a language with overt case morphology but without articles, which are considered to be the main motivation to posit a DP projection. Hence, the existence of D is a debatable issue in Japanese. Fukui (1986) and Fukui and Takano (2000) claim that D does not exist in Japanese. Watanabe (2002), on the other hand, argues for an abstract DP. This is evidenced by the presence of NP internal phrasal movement, which yields different combinations of nouns, classifiers and case: (172) a. John-wa hon san-satsu-o katta. John-top book 3-cl-acc bought “John bought three books.” b. John-wa san-satsu-no hon-o katta. c. John-wa hon-o san-satsu katta. d. John-wa san-satsu hon-o katta.

(Watanabe 2002:4)

In his analysis of (172), Watanabe (2002) proposes that there have to be certain functional projections on top of the NP in Japanese to host the movement of phrasal categories in (172). He proposes NumP, CaseP, QP and DP for Japanese. He argues that DP is required in Japanese to host CaseP in structures like (172c). He specifically states that Case and D belong to separate functional projections, yet there is an Agree relation between them to define the specificity interpretation of NPs. NP-internal movement is considered to be one of the strongest evidence for a DP projection (Longobardi 1994, Cinque 1994, among others). Therefore, we opt to adopt Watanabe (2002) and assume that Japanese is like Hungarian that it has separate functional projections associated with case and referentiality. Then the crucial question is what is the domain where these two features are introduced in Japanese? As discussed above, in Japanese Miyagawa (2001) presents the following examples to show that scrambling in Japanese exhibits both Amovement and A-bar movement.

196


(173) a. Zen in-ga [VP sono tesuto-o uke-nakat-ta] SOV all-nom that test-acc take-neg-past “All did not take that test.” (all> not , *not>all) b. sono tesuto-o zen in-ga uke-nakat-ta. OSV that test-acc all-nom take-neg-past “That test, all did not take.” (not>all, all> not) Miyagawa (2001) shows that SOV order in (173a) is unambiguous that the quantified subject takes scope over negation, which is situated above VP. This implies that the quantified subject has moved to a c-commanding position to take scope over negation. Miyagawa (2001) proposes that the subject is at [Spec, TP] in (173a), where it c-commands negation. He claims that this is an instance of A-movement since it is not possible for the subject to reconstruct into its VP-internal position, where it is c-commanded by negation. In OSV order in (173b), on the other hand, there is ambiguity. Either negation or the quantified subject can take scope over the other. Miyagawa (2001) suggests that this ambiguity follows from different derivation possibilities for the surface order. When the subject takes wide scope, the subject undergoes Amovement as in (174a) to [Spec, TP] and c-commands negation. Then the object is moved to a position higher than TP, which has to be an A-bar position. Hence, this is an instance of A-bar scrambling in Japanese. In the case where negation takes wide scope, on the other hand, it is the object that moves to [Spec, TP], that is, to an A-position. Thus, this causes the subject to remain in its VP-internal position below negation, hence the narrow scope for the subject. The movement of the object to [Spec, TP] illustrates that A-scrambling also exists in Japanese. Note that in both derivations either the subject or the object has to move to [Spec, TP]. Miyagawa (2001) claims that the main motivation behind this movement is the EPP feature on T head, which needs to be satisfied by Merge/Move XP. Thus, he argues that EPP exists in Japanese and triggers NP movement to [Spec, TP]. 39 However, there is another implication of this analysis. That the object can satisfy EPP and the subject can stay in situ means that the subject does not have any motivation, such as casechecking to move to [Spec, TP]. This implies that the subject should be casemarked in situ, hence it does not have any motivation to move for case reasons. Thus, even though in (173a) the subject undergoes A-movement to [Spec, TP], this is not a case-driven A-movement, but it is solely due to EPP feature on T. This is further supported by the following data from:


197

(174) a. disco-dei zen in-ga ti odora-nakat-ta (yo) disco-at all-nom dance-neg-past “At the discoi, all did not dance ti.” b. Mary-toi zen in-ga ti odora-nakat-ta (yo) Mary-with all did not dance-neg-past “With Maryi all did not dance ti.” (Miyagawa 2001) (175) a. Zen in-ga Mary-ni [CP John-ga sono hon-o nakusita to] all-nom Mary-dat John-nom that book-acc lost Comp osie-nakat-ta (yo). tell- neg-past “All did not tell Mary that John lost the book.” b. [CP John-ga sono hon-o nakusita to] zen in-ga Mary-ni John-nom that book-acc lost Comp all-nom Mary-dat osie-nakat-ta (yo). tell- neg-past. “That John lost the book, all did not tell Mary.” As seen in (175), EPP can be checked by an adjunct PP as well, which further implies that arguments do not really undergo A-movement into [Spec, TP] for case purposes.40 In (175b), on the other hand, EPP is checked by a CP, as the subject remains in situ. As within the GB framework movement to [Spec, TP] implies case checking, we take its absence in Japanese as the absence of case-driven Agree between the subject and the T head in minimalist terms. As for object case, Fukui and Takano (1998) argue that in Japanese the object case assignment (accusative) is not parallel to structural case assignment in languages like English but is assigned in a manner similar to the assignment of inherent case. That is, accusative case in Japanese is already available for the object in the theta position. This also implies that there is no case-driven Agree of the object with a higher functional category such as vP in Japanese either. Based on these, we propose that argument DPs in Japanese do not undergo case-driven Agree with higher functional projections such as TP and vP. But the case feature is available for arguments in their theta positions. This implies that in Japanese, too, just like Hungarian case and referentiality assignment are done within the same projection:


198 (176)

XP wo DP à [+ref] X’ wo X [+case]

Theta position

As seen in (176) NPs are merged into theta positions already embedded under DPs, that is, they are introduced referentiality in theta positions. Case feature is also available on theta role introducing functional heads, thus, NPs in Japanese acquire argumenthood in their theta positions just like Turkish and Hungarian. Miyagawa (1991, 2001, 2003) shows that there is V-to-T movement in Japanese. We argue that as in the case of Hungarian and Turkish the verb head undergoes head movement to theta-role introducing heads and picks up its arguments:41 (177)

TP wo

T’ wo

AgentP T [+EPP] wo MERGE àDP subject Ag’ [+ref]wo

ThemeP

Ag [+Case]

wo

MERGE àDP object Theme’ [+ref] wo Comp Pred à VP Theme [+Case] wo

V’ wo

NP

V

Going back to (164), so far Japanese behaves fully in compliance with it. As a language without case-driven Agree it exhibits scrambling. Now we will take a look at whether Japanese also exhibits pseudo-incorporation as expected under (164).


199

In accordance with (164), it is possible to pseudo-incorporate NPs in Japanese: (178) Sensei-ga gakusei-ni kin-no-kunsyoo:zyuyo-go. teacher-nom student-dat golden-gen-decoration:award-after “After the teacher awarded a golden decoration to the student.” (Miyagawa 1991:15) However, there is one very crucial difference which sets Japanese apart from Hungarian and Turkish. In Japanese, unlike Turkish and Hungarian, it is possible to have pseudo incorporation for themes in transitive constructions, but pseudo incorporation of agents is not possible. If the pseudo incorporation analysis which we have proposed both for Turkish and Hungarian is on the right track then the absence of agent incorporation is unexpected. Since case feature is available in theta positions, an NP occurring within the [NP+V] complex should possibly be able to check the case feature on the AgentP head and thus be interpreted as the agent, when no DP is merged into [Spec, AgentP]: (179) Agent Incorporation: TP wo

T’ wo

AgentP wo [-Ref] Ag’

T [+EPP]

wo

ThemeP

Ag

[+Case]

wo

MERGE àDP [+Ref] Theme’ object wo Comp Pred à VP Theme [+Case] wo

V’ wo

NP

V

However, agent incorporation is not possible in Japanese. Then the question is why there is such a restriction in Japanese pseudo incorporation.

200


Going back to Turkish and Hungarian, we have shown that they behave similar to Japanese in terms of scrambling. However, there is one crucial difference between Japanese, and Turkish and Hungarian, namely the way the EPP feature is checked. As seen in the discussion of Turkish and Hungarian above, both languages allow their [Spec, TP] position to be totally empty. For example, that is why both Turkish and Hungarian allow impersonal passives without any recourse to expletives in [Spec, TP]: (180) a. Turkish:

b. Hungarian:

Ko -ul-du. run-pass-past “Running happened.” Fut-nak. run-3pl “Running is happening.” (p.c. Aniko Csirmaz)

Alexiadou and Anagastopoulou (1998) claim that EPP can be checked in two ways; either by Merge/Move XP or by Move X0. They suggest that in pro-drop languages with rich agreement, the verbal agreement has pronominal features, which can check EPP via V-to-T raising. Both Hungarian and Turkish exhibit rich agreement morphology. This implies that in these languages EPP is taken care of by Move X0 and therefore there is no need to fill [Spec, TP]. However, Japanese does not exhibit such agreement morphology and EPP must be checked by Merge/Move XP. This is quite a strong requirement in Japanese. Note that EPP in Japanese requires the [Spec, TP] position be overtly filled, either by an argument, by an adjunct or by a CP as shown above in (173-79) (Yamashita 2001). This difference in EPP checking can be illustrated by the following examples in Turkish and Japanese: (181) a. Turkish: Bütün çocuklar o test-e gir-me-di. SOV all children that test-dat take-neg-past “All children did not take that test.” (*all> not , not>all) b. Japanese: Zen in-ga [VPsono tesuto-o uke-nakat-ta] SOV all-nom that test-acc take-neg-past “All did not take that test.” (all> not , *not>all) As seen in (181) contrary to the case in Japanese the quantified subject always takes narrow scope in Turkish This implies that nothing moves to


201

[Spec, TP], that is, the subject is in its base position, where it is c-commanded by negation. In Japanese on the other hand, the subject always takes wide scope with respect to negation, since it needs to move to [Spec, TP] to check the EPP feature. The subject can only take narrow scope if some other constituent can check the EPP feature under scrambling: (182) Sono tesuto-o zen in-ga uke-nakat-ta. OSV that test-acc all-nom take-neg-past “That test, all did not take.” (not>all, all> not) If Japanese pseudo incorporation also follows the structure we have proposed for Turkish and Hungarian pseudo incorporation shown in (179), then in the case of agent incorporation, there will be no referentiality encoded in the domain of AgentP. This will cause the case on the Agent head to be checked by the NP in [NP+V], and the NP will be interpreted as the agent. However, as nothing is merged into [Spec, AgentP], there will not be a subject in the structure. As there is no Subject, this implies that nothing will be available to move to [Spec, TP] to check EPP. However, as illustrated in (173-175), EPP does not always have to be checked by the subject. Arguments such as objects, complement CPs and adjuncts can check EPP as well. Hence in OSV order it should be possible to have agent incorporation. However, this is not the case. Agent incorporation is not allowed in OSV either. We believe that this has to do with the degree of markedness in SOV and OSV orders. Agent-Theme-Verb is the most neutral order due to the theta hierarchy. In Japanese unless the object is scrambled to [Spec, TP], Theme-Agent-Verb order under agent incorporation will lead to ungrammaticality due to the unchecked EPP feature on T. Thus, pseudo incorporation of agents in Japanese will always be dependent on the presence of scrambling, which is a marked and more costly operation. Therefore, it is not desired. This could be one possible explanation for the lack of agent incorporation in Japanese. Intransitives also present further support for such an account. Intransitive constructions, whether with unergative or unaccusative predicates also do not allow pseudo incorporation (S. Miyagawa: p.c.): (183) a. Hoteru-ni kyaku-ga tootyaku-go à Unaccusative hotel-dat guest-nom arrive-after “After the guest arrives at hotel” b. *Hoteru-ni kyaku:tootyaku-go à Pseudo incorporation hotel-dat guest:arrive-after

202


(184) a. Kodomo-ga taisoo-tyuu child-nom exercise-while “While the child exercises” b. *Kodomo:taisoo-tyuu child:exercise-while

à Unergative à Pseudo incorporation (Miyagawa 1991:16)

In the case of intransitives since the only available constituent to check EPP would be the pseudo-incorporated NP under the unmarked order, this will lead to ungrammaticality. As it will not be possible to Merge/Move XP into [Spec, TP] EPP will not be checked and the sentence will crash.42 As the discussion above shows, Japanese is fully in accordance with the predictions made under (164) as a language without case-driven Agree. This explains why it is a non-configurational language that exhibits scrambling, as well as pseudo-incorporation. 4.2.3 Chinese. As we discussed in section 1, Chinese has already been defined as a purely (Neo)-Davidsonian language by Lin (2001). That is, NPs in Chinese do not leave their base positions either, similar to the case in Turkish and Hungarian. Under the proposal made above, it is expected that Chinese should also have a non-configurational phrase structure. However, this is not the case. Just like English, Chinese does not exhibit free word order. In order to explain this we need to focus on the status of case and referentiality as syntactic features in Chinese. Chinese is a language without overt morphological determiners but it has a classifier system. Whether Chinese has an abstract DP is a debatable issue. Note that Chinese does not have any overt morphology for determiners. Based on the distribution of indefinites in Chinese, Li (1999) argue for a minimally projected DP. Cheng and Sybesma (1999), on the other hand, claim that ClP in Chinese acts as the counterpart of DPs in English. Chierchia (1998), on the other hand, argues that DP is not required in Chinese as Chinese NPs denote arguments by default, thus, they do not need a functional category typeshifting them into arguments. The main claim of this study is that case and referentiality are correlated features and unless both features are assigned, a predicative NP cannot become a syntactic argument. That is why languages develop certain functional projections responsible for case and referentiality assignment. As case and referentiality are closely related, in order to claim that there is an independent category for referentiality assignment (DP) in a language, there has to be independent functional categories associated with case assignment as


203

well. That is, these two features should both be available in syntax. Unless case assignment is mediated via functional categories in syntax in a language, one cannot argue for an independent category for referentiality assignment. This raises the question of what the status of case is in Chinese syntax. Whether case exists in Chinese syntax or not is also a debatable issue. Lin (2001) states that: Chinese does not exhibit any Case-related effect --- there is no inflection, nor other similar grammatical phenomena, in this langage. In view of this fact, the theory of case-feature checking can hardly be empirically justified in Chinese. Furthermore, there is no evidence that XPs in Chinese undergo overt or covert movement to check some uninterpretable feature of a head H. Consequently, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that, in Chinese, Case-feature checking plays a role in the core syntax. (Lin 2001: 196)

A typical example of case-related phenomenon for NPs observed crosslinguistically (à la GB framework) is passivization. However, Huang (1997) clearly shows that Chinese passive structures cannot be accounted for by casebased analyses such as the one attempted by Li (1985). Thus this supports the observation that there is no case-related phenomenon in Chinese. Chinese exhibits two types of passives; long passive and short passive as illustrated in (185a) and (185b) below respectively: (185) a. The long passive: bei NP-VP Zhangsan bei Lisi da le. Zhangsan BEI Lisi hit PERF “Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.” b. The short passive: bei VP Zhangsan bei da le. Zhangsan BEI hit PERF “Zhangsan was hit.”

(Huang 1997:3)

Li (1985, 1990) proposes a case-driven NP movement account for the passive constructions in Chinese given in (185) on a par with English passives: (186) Zhangsani bei Lisi da le ti. Huang (1997) clearly shows the inadequacy of such an analysis to account for Chinese passivization facts and proposes two separate “non-casedriven” accounts for the two types of passive constructions in Chinese. For Chinese long passives, he argues for an account based on A’-movement of a


204

null operator co-indexed with the main subject. This coindexation is interpreted as the secondary predicate of the subject: (187) [IPZhangsani [VPbei [IPOPi [IPLisi da le ti]]]] For Chinese short passives, on the other hand, he proposes a control structure, where a PRO undergoes A-movement from the object position to the VP internal subject position so that it can be controlled by the main subject: (188) [IP Zhangsani [VPbei [VPPROi da le ti.]]] Note that in either of his accounts, the main clause subject is basegenerated in place and receives an independent thematic role from bei. This implies that unlike passive constructions in English, object NPs do not undergo case-driven A-movement to [Spec, IP] to be case assigned. This account of passivization supports the idea that there is no case-related phenomenon in Chinese. However, Chinese exhibits raising constructions, ergatives and pseudopassives (without bei), which seem to be case-driven, as illustrated in (189), (190) and (191) respectively: (189) Zhangsan keneng kanjian-le Lisi. Zhangsan likely see-LE Lisi “Zhangsan is likely to have seen Lisi.” (190)

(J. Huang: p.c.)

Men kai-le. door open-LE “The door opened.”

(191) Yifu xi-guo-le. cloth wash-experiential-LE “The clothes got washed.” Let us consider each construction in turn. In (189) we have a raising construction, where the embedded subject undergoes raising into the matrix subject position similar to English raising constructions. However, it is not possible to argue that this movement is case-driven as the one in English, since Chinese allows the embedded subject to remain in situ as in (192):


(192)

Keneng Zhangsan kanjian-le Lisi. likely Zhangsan see-LE Lisi “It is likely that Zhangsan has seen Lisi.”

205

(J. Huang: p.c.)

Note that there is no difference in terms of finiteness of the embedded verb between (189) and (192). That the embedded subject can remain in situ without undergoing raising simply implies that the movement in (190) cannot be case-driven. In (190) and (191), on the other hand, the subjects, which are underlyingly themes, obligatorily precede the verb. If they occur following the verb, they are interpreted as the object of the clause where the subject has undergone pro-drop: (193)

(Ta) kai-le men. he open-LE door “He opened the door.”

(194)

(Ta) xi-guo-le yifu le. he wash-experiential-LE cloth particle “He washed the clothes.”

The fact that theme NPs in (190) and (191) occur preverbally, however, does not necessarily imply that they have undergone movement into the matrix subject position. Given that the matrix subject position can be left empty in Chinese as in (192), nothing really argues that the theme NPs in (191) and (192) are in subject position. Under the proposal by Lin (2001), adopted here, it can very well be assumed that these nouns are in the Spec position of the functional head introducing the theme. This will yield the right word order:43 (195)

ThemeP wo door/clothes Theme’ wo Theme VP wo V’ wo V closed/washed

206


As widely discussed in the literature, Chinese verbs undergo V-to-V movement, that is, the lexical verb undergoes movement into higher light verb heads, however, there is no evidence that verbs raise to T in Chinese (Cheng 1989, Huang 1994, 1997, Gu 1995, Tang 1998, Lin 2001, among others). In order to argue that the subjects in (190) and (191) move into a higher position such as [Spec, TP], the verb for sure should have undergone movement to a higher functional projection. Since there is not V-to-T in Chinese it is not possible to argue that the subjects in (94) and (191) have been dislocated.44 Let us consider what can potentially trigger the movement observed in (190), which is obviously not case-driven. Consider: (196) Haoxiang bu shi suoyu de xuesheng dou lai-le. (*all>not, not>all) seem not all de student all come “It is not the case that all students came.” (197) Suoyu de xuesheng dou haoxiang mei lai. (all>not, *not>all) all de student all seem not come “All the students do not seem to have come.” (R. Ai: p.c.) As seen in (196) in raising constructions when the embedded subject remains in situ the subject takes narrow scope. However, when it raises it unambiguously takes wide scope over negation. This is very similar to the case observed in Turkish discussed in Section 4.1.2, where movement into [Spec, TP] is not for case reasons but to yield a Topic-Predicate structure forcing the scrambled element to be interpreted as presuppositional. We propose that in Chinese, which is a topic-prominent language (Li & Thompson 1981) movement to preverbal position is not for case purposes either but to yield a topic. Note that as well-noticed in the literature, preverbal elements that are to be interpreted as topics cannot be interpreted as non-specific (Chao 1968, Li & Thompson 1981, Li 1999, Cheng & Sybesma 1999, among many others):45 (198) a. ??San-ge xuesheng chile dangao. three-cl student ate cake “Three students ate the cake.” b. Na san-ge xuesheng chile dangao. that three-cl student ate cake “These three students ate the cake.”


207

This implies that movement to preverbal position is not case-driven but it is for interpretational purposes. Thus, we argue that even though the data in (189)-(192) at first seem to be in conflict with the proposal that there are no case-related phenomena in Chinese, they do not challenge it at all and can be analyzed accordingly.46 Given the proposal made here that case and referentiality are corelated and have to co-exist, if case is not a relevant feature in Chinese syntax, then we cannot assume the presence of a functional category carrying a “syntacticallyrelevant” referentiality feature. Taking away these features from syntax leaves behind only theta-role related functional projections. This suggests a purely Neo-Davidsonian language as defined by Lin (2001). One aspect of case assignment is that it licenses the occurrence of an NP with a phonetic form. In accordance with case filter every phonetically realized NP must be assigned (abstract) case (Chomsky 1986). Focusing on this aspect of case that case-assignment is a formal condition at work at Syntax-PF interface, Lin (2001) proposes that in the absence of case the formal condition relevant for Chinese is the subjecthood of an NP. That is, an NP in Chinese can have a phonetic realization only if it is the formal subject of a predicate. Lin (2001) claims that all arguments in Chinese must be introduced via merger to the specifier position of light verbs, that is, at the Spec position of a relevant theta role bearing functional projection. Lin (2001) discusses that the notion of unselectiveness of subject and object applies to Chinese verbs, that is, an active verb in Chinese can freely take an agent, a location or a causer as the surface subject, also a theme/patient, an instrument, a location, or a reason as the surface object, moving into the relevant theta role introducing light verb verb heads: ....

(199) a.

VP

NP  Laowang  On the exp ressway  This BMW 

V' V

VP

DO  EXIST   CAUSE 

... kai ... 'drive' (Lin 2001:5)


208 b.

.... VP V' V

VP NP that BMW   left hand left - hand side   fun  

V' V

VP

∅  USE    AT FOR   

kai 'drive'

V

This account of Chinese as proposed by Lin (2001) confirms our proposal that in the absence of syntactic case and referentiality features, what is left for the phrase structure is the theta role related functional projections. As case is not represented in syntax in Chinese, referentiality cannot be syntactically represented either. Therefore, we propose that Chierchia’s account for Chinese NPs should hold that NPs in Chinese are inherently of argument type and they do not need to be type-shifted in syntax by certain functional categories. Note that Classical Chinese has case morphology (Jim Huang, p.c.). Historically this might imply that the referentiality must at some point be represented in syntax, when syntactic case was available, but in Modern Chinese this syntactic feature should have been lexicalized and referentiality has become part of the NP denotation, causing Chinese NPs to be of argument type. We will claim that as case and referentiality are closely related, the transfer of the referentiality feature from syntax into the lexicon leads to the detoriation of the case system. This is why Chinese exhibits almost no motivation for the presence of case in its syntax but has a rich variety of theta role related functional projections as shown by Lin (2001). As case and referentiality are not the relevant features in syntax in Chinese, NPs acquire argumenthood if and only if they exhibit subjecthood as defined by Lin (2001). That is, an NP is interpreted as an argument if it occurs in the Spec position of a theta-role bearing functional category (light verb). However, this subjecthood relation is not morphologically realized unlike what is observed in languages like Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian. Note that in Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian case licenses the occurrence of an NP with a phonetic form and all instances of case realization are dependent on a single functional category, namely T, which makes all arguments of the verb equidistant for T to attract, once V-to-T takes place. However, as shown by Lin (2001) the formal condition for the PF realization of arguments is subjecthood


209

to a theta-role introducing functional projection. Hence, this is not dependent on the presence or absence of a functional category as T, yet there is no V-to-T in Chinese. Therefore, it is not possible to talk about equidistance with respect to another functional category. In the absence of any morphophonological evidence NPs in Chinese cannot be scrambled just like NPs in English, where the formal condition for PF realization of arguments is in a sense also defined in relation to separate case assigning functional heads TP and vP. This is why Chinese does not exhibit free word order unlike Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian. Chinese also does not exhibit pseudo incorporation. Given the account we proposed here, this is expected. Pseudo incorporation can only occur, when pseudo-incorporated NPs check case in theta positions through head movement of the [NP+V] complex. Since no such feature is available in theta positions, which would ensure visibility for theta role assignment, pseudo incorporation cannot be implemented in Chinese. 4.2.4 Summary. In the discussion above we have seen that languages can exhibit variation in the domain where they encode case and referentiality features. In languages like Turkish, case and referentiality are assigned by the same functional category within the domain of a single functional projection. Hence, predicative NPs merged into the Spec positions of the functional categories bearing case and referentiality features are type-shifted into syntactic arguments. In Hungarian and Japanese, on the other hand, although there are independent functional categories associated with case and referentiality, these features are still assigned within the domain of a single functional projection. Referentiality is assigned to a predicative NP by a DP projected on top of the NP. Then case is assigned to the same DP as it is merged at the Spec position of the case assigning functional category. Hence, both case and referentiality are assigned within the same projection. As discussed above, in languages where case and referentiality are assigned within the domain of a single projection, there is no case-driven Agree with higher functional projections. All the arguments will remain in their theta positions, which have equal relations with the verb in terms of event structure. This is what triggers the non-configurationality effect in languages like Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian. In languages like English, on the other hand, case and referentiality assignment is not only mediated by independent functional categories, but also achieved within the domain of separate functional projections. As case and referentiality are co-dependent features, they need to be associated with each other at some point in the derivation. This triggers

210


case-driven Agree with hierarchically ordered functional projections TP and vP in languages like English and therefore a configurational phrase structure is formed. Languages like Chinese, on the other hand, have excluded referentiality and case features from their syntax, but lexicalized them. Hence, in Chinese NPs are merged into the structure already interpreted as arguments. They only require specification for theta roles, which is ensured by merging into the Spec position of theta role introducing light verbs. 4.3 Null Arguments In addition to scrambling another property of non-configurational languages defined by Hale (1983) is extensive pro-drop of all arguments. Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian allow either the subject or the (in)direct object to be dropped: (200) a. (Ben) (onu) sev-di-m. (Turkish) I him/her love-past-1ps “I loved him/her.” b. (John-ga) (kare-o) nagusameta. (Japanese: Hoji 1998: 130) John-nom he-acc consoled. “John consoled him.” c. Làttam (öt). (Hungarian: Puskás 2000:42) see-past-1sg he/she-acc “I saw him.” In the following we will discuss how null-arguments are licensed in these non-configurational languages in comparison to the argument drop observed in non-configurational languages such as Italian, Spanish and Chinese. In the literature the availability of pro-drop in languages like Italian and Spanish is correlated with the existence of a rich agreement system, which helps recover the content of the empty argument specified with the features [+pronominal, -anaphor] (Taraldsen 1978, Chomsky 1981, Jaeggli 1982, Borer 1983, Huang 1984, Rizzi 1986, among many others). Huang (1984) illustrates the role of agreement in pro-licensing with the following Pashto example: (201) a. (J n) ra-z-i. John dir-come-3msg “John comes.”


211

b. (z«) *(mana) xwr-«m. I apple eat-1msg “I eat the apple.” (202) a. (J n) ra- -ay. John asp-come-3msg “John came.” b. *(ma) (mana) w«-xwr-a. I apple prf-eat-3fsg “I ate the apple.” In Pashto, which is a rich agreement language, in the present tense the verb agrees with the subject both in transitive and intransitive sentences exhibiting the nominative-accusative pattern as illustrated in (201). In the past tense, however, Pashto exhibits an ergative agreement system, where the verb agrees with the subject of the intransitive and the object of transitive as in (202). In either agreement pattern, only the element, which agrees with the verb, can be dropped. Therefore, in (201b) the non-agreeing object cannot undergo pro-drop, and the same holds for the non-agreeing subject in (202b). With this contrast Huang (1984) highlights the role of agreement in pro licensing. Huang (1984), however, introduces the discourse dependent argument drop strategy in languages like Chinese, which allows both subjects and objects to be null in the absence of any agreement morphology. This challenges the agreement-based pro-drop analysis for Chinese: (203) (Ta) kanjian (ta) le. he saw he LE “He saw him.”

(Huang 1984:533)

As noticed by Huang (1984, 1987) and Xu (1986) empty categories in Chinese exhibit different properties than the null arguments found in languages like Spanish and Italian. As illustrated in (204) the empty object in Chinese receives a bound variable or sloppy identity reading: (204) a. Meigereni [piping le zijii] everyone criticize perf self “Everyonei criticized selfi.”


212

b. Zhishi Zhangsanj mei piping [ej]. only Zhangsan not criticize =“Only Zhangsanj did not criticize selfj” “Only Zhangsanj did not criticize everyonei” “Only Zhangsanj did not criticize Zhangsanj” Based on these properties of Chinese empty categories, Huang (1987) proposes that the empty category in Chinese is a variable bound by a null topic operator, which has [+anaphor] properties. Thus, (204) can be considered to be on a par with (205): (205)

Zijij Zhangsanj bu piping [ej]. self Zhangsan not criticize “Selfj Zhangsanj does not criticize [e]j”

Huang proposes that Chinese is a null topic language but not a pro-drop language. He argues that there are two parameters, namely a null topic parameter observed in languages like Chinese, Korean, Japanese in the absence of agreement and also a pro-drop parameter like the one found in Italian and Spanish. In null topic languages, what licenses the empty category is the operator-variable chain, which licenses the empty category, whereas in prodrop languages it is recoverable through morphological agreement. Now let us take a look at empty categories in Turkish. As shown above Turkish allows both the subject and the object to be phonetically empty. At first look Turkish exhibits a split system. The verb only agrees with subject, so it can be said that the subject drop is licensed similar to the case in Italian or Spanish via the verbal agreement. Thus, in that respect it is a pro-drop language. However, there is no object agreement on the verb and the object drop is still licensed, which implies that object drop fits the null topic pattern of the Chinese type. This implies that in object drop cases we are dealing with variables. Now let us take a closer look at the nature of empty categories both in subject drop and object drop cases. We will start with subject drop:47 (206) a. (Ben) gid-iyor-um. I go-prog-1ps “I am going.”

d. (Biz) gid-iyor-uz. we go-prog-1ppl “We are going.”


b. (Sen) gid-iyor-sun. you go-prog-2ps “You are going.” c. (O) gid-iyor-∅. go-prog.-3ps “He/she/it is going.”

213

e. (Siz) gid-iyor-sunuz. go-prog-2ppl “You are going.” f. (On-lar) gid-iyor-lar. go-prog.-3ppl “They are going.”

As shown in (206), the verb agrees with the subject morphologically and subject drop is possible. The empty element which occurs in the subject position exhibits pronominal features as illustrated in (207): (207) a. John Mary-i seviyor. John Mary-acc loves “John loves Mary.” b. Johni [eci/j Mary-i sev-di -in-]i biliyor. John Mary-acc love-nomin-3ps-acc knows “Johni knows that hei/j loves Mary.” As seen in (207) the empty category can either be associated with the matrix subject or with someone else already introduced in the discourse on a par with pronominal elements. Therefore, it is assumed that the empty subject is pro in Turkish. Both Kornfilt (1984) and Özsoy (1988) argue that pro is licensed via agreement introduced by AgrP. However, as discussed in detail by Öztürk (1999, 2002a) subject-drop does not require the presence of verbal agreement. This is observed in adjunct clauses that do not allow any verbal agreement morphology. As shown in (208) the verb in the adjunct clause does not have any morphological agreement: (208) Ben gel-ince, Ahmet gid-ecek. I come-when Ahmet go-fut “When I come, Ahmet will go.” (209) A: Johni Billj gel-ince mi gid-ecek? John Bill come-when Q go-fut “Will John go when Bill comes?” B: Evet, proj gel-ince, proi gid-ecek. Yes come-when go-fut “Yes, hei will go when hej comes.”

214


As shown in (209B) pro in the adjunct clause is licensed without any overt agreement morphology. Note that it cannot be coindexed with the matrix subject or the matrix verbal agreement. This implies that pro in Turkish does not have to be licensed by agreement, but is discourse bound. Now let us take a look at null objects in Turkish. As discussed by nce (2004) the null object in adjunct clauses is also a pronominal element, that is, it is a pro: (210) a. Ahmeti Hasan ecivur-unca, a la-ma-ya ba lad . ( nce 2004:3) Ahmet Hasan hit-when cry-to-dat started. “Ahmet started crying when Hasan hit him.” b. er eci orada b rak- r-sa-n, kedi fare-yii yi-yecek. if there leave-aorist-cond-2ps cat mouse-acc eat-fut “If you leave it there the cat will eat the mouse.” c. Hasan eci azarla-y nca, herkesi a la-ma-ya ba lad . Hasan scold-when everyone cry-to-dat started. “When Hasan scolded (them), everyone started to cry.” As seen in (210a), the null object in the adjunct clause can be coindexed with the embedded subject and it is coindexed with the matrix object in (210b). (210c) also highlights the non-variable nature of the empty category, since it allows only a collective reading not a distributive reading. In simplex clauses, too, the null object exhibits pronominal features: (211) Maryi ec*i/j seviyor. Mary loves “Mary loves him/her/it/*herself.” As seen in (211) the empty object cannot be coindexed with the matrix subject, since this will be a Condition B violation given the pronominal nature of the object. nce (2004) discusses some instances in simplex clauses, however, where he argues that the null object behaves as an anaphor, allowing sloppy identity readings: (212) A: Alii kendinii teselli etti. Ali himself console did “Ali consoled himself.”

( nce 2004:4)


215

B: Velij de ecj/i teselli etti. Veli too console did “Veli consoled (him/himself) too.” As seen in (212) the null object allows both a strict reading and a sloppy reading. This raises the question of whether we are really dealing with operator-variable constructions of the type found in Chinese. Similar constructions are also available in Japanese: (213) A: John-wa [zibun-no tegami-o] sute-ta. John-nom self-gen letter-acc discard-perf “John threw out self’s letters.” B: Mary-mo [ec] sute-ta. Mary too discard-perf =“Mary also threw out self’s letters.” =“Mary also threw out John’s letters.” (Otani & Whitman 1991:346) Otani & Whitman (1991) analyzes these constructions on a par with null topic constructions in Chinese following Huang (1987). They claim that the construction in (213) is a VP-ellipsis case, where the VP is deleted after V raising takes place leaving a totally empty VP behind. Hoji (1998) argues against this proposal. He shows that Japanese cases cannot be analyzed as VP ellipsis. His first argument comes from locality restrictions which are active for sloppy readings in English. He shows that Japanese cases are not subject to such a restriction: (214) A: Johni thinks that Bill likes himi. B: and Mary does [e]VP too. and Mary thinks that Bill does [e]VP too. In (214) the sloppy reading “Maryj thinks that Bill likes herj” is not possible in embedded context, implying that sloppy identity reading is subject to locality. Japanese, on the other hand, does not impose such a restriction on sloppy readings. Consider the context provided by Hoji (1998): “John and Mary have been competing with each other in placing their students for good teaching positions. Ordinarily, whenever John recommends John’s student for a position, Mary also recommends Mary’s student for the same position. Now,

216


Bill, Mary’s colleague, who used to be her student, does various things for Mary. He sometimes even recommends Mary’s students on behalf of Mary so that Mary does not have to do anything” (Hoji 1998: 137). Given such a context sloppy reading is possible for null objects in embedded clauses. This implies that Japanese cases are different from VP-ellipsis cases: (215) (Demo) Mary-wai [Bill-ga eci suisensita to] omotteita but Mary-top Bill-nom recommended that thought (Dakara ec zibun de-wa nani-mo sinakatta. So on.her.part anything did not do “But Maryi thought that Bill recommended ec(=heri student) and so she did not do anything herself.” (Hoji 1998: 137) Hoji’s second argument relies on the case that sloppy identity readings in Japanese do not require c-command. As seen in (216) sloppy reading is allowed even in the absence of c-command, unlike the case with true variables as the one illustrated in (217): (216) A: [NP eck mukasi John-oi osieta sensei-gak ] karei years ago John-acc taught teacher-nom him (no koto)-o homete iru. (about)-acc is.praising The teacher who taught Johni years ago is praising himi. B: [NP eck mukasi Bill-oj osieta sensei-mok] ecj homete iru. years ago Bill-acc taught teacher-nom is.praising The teacher who taught Billj years ago is praising himj too. (217) *[NPeck mukasi subete-no gakusei-oi osieta sensei-gak] soitui years.ago all-gen student taught teacher-nom guy (no koto)-o homete iru. (about)-acc is.praising “The teacher who taught every studenti years ago is praising himi or heri.” (Hoji 1998: 146) In addition Hoji (1998) points out that in Japanese the strict reading is available and indeed preferred over the sloppy reading even when there is an anaphor:


(218) A: John-ga zibun(zisin)-o suisensita. John-nom self-acc recommended “John recommended himself.” B: Bill-mo ec suisensita. Bill-also recommended “Bill recommended him(=John), too.”

217

(Hoji 1998: 147)

The preferred reading in (218) is the strict reading, even when zibunzisin is the bindee. Based on such evidence Hoji (1998) argues that Japanese constructions given in (213) cannot be analyzed on a par with Chinese constructions. He proposes that the sloppy-like interpretation in Japanese arises from the context available in discourse. If the supplied content of the empty category could correspond to zibun in the discourse, then a sloppy like reading becomes available owing to the concept use of the empty category. In other words, the sloppy-like reading is due to the way the content of the null argument is recovered. Now let us return to the Turkish case shown in (212). The null object in these constructions also behaves just like the Japanese one. Compare (218) with its Turkish counterpart given in (219) uttered in an identical context: (219) (Ama) Maryi [Bill-in eci öner-di -in-i] sand but Mary-top Bill-nom recommend-nomin-3ps-acc thought ve kendisi hiç bir ey yap-ma-d . and herself anything do- not-past “But Maryi thought that Bill recommended ec(=heri student) and so she did not do anything herself.” Given the grammaticality of (219), sloppy reading does not require locality in Turkish either. Furthermore, Turkish replicates the Japanese facts observed in (216) and (217) regarding the c-command condition on sloppy readings: (220) A: [NP eck John-ui okutan ö retmenk] onui çok övüyor. John-u taught teacher him a lot is.praising “The teacher who taught Johni is praising himi a lot.” B: [NP eck Bill-ij okutan ö retmenk] de ecj övüyor. Bill-acc taught teacher too is.praising “The teacher who taught Billj is praising himj a lot too.”

218


(221)*[NP eckher ö renci-yii okutan ö retmenk onui çok övüyor. every student-acc taught teacher )he-acc a.lot is.praising “The teacher who taught every studenti years ago is praising himi or heri a lot.” Finally given an anaphoric bindee it is also possible and also preferred to have a strict reading instead of a sloppy reading in Turkish again as in the case of Japanese: (222) A: John bu i için kendini önerdi. John this job for self recommended. “John recommended himself for this job.” B: Bill de ec önerdi. Bill too recommended. “Bill recommended him(=John), too.” nce (2004) also provides evidence against VP-Deletion, which is assumed to hold for null topic languages. In the so-called VP-Deletion examples in Turkish, not only can the direct object be omitted, but also the indirect object and adjuncts: (223) Ahmet [dün sinema-da Ay e-yi]i görmü ; ama, pro Ahmeti yesterday theatre-loc Ay e.-Acc.saw but pro görmedi ini ei söylüyor. see-not-Comp-3ps-acc says “Ahmet saw [Ay e at the theatre yesterday]i; but he says he did not see ei.” ( nce 2004:6) Then, the empty category seems to stand for the phrases within the square brackets, which can be a good argument for VP-deletion. However, it is also possible to strand dative arguments when direct objects are deleted in Turkish: (224) Ahmet kitab masa-ya koymu ; Hasan da masaya koymu . Ahmet book-acc.i table-dat put Hasan too ei table-dat put “Ahmet put the booki on the table; Hasan put ei on the table too.” ( nce 2004:6)


219

nce (2004) shows that the availability of constructions like (224) argues against a VP deletion analysis for Turkish. If (224) were VP-deletion, the dative argument would also be deleted in addition to the accusative object. Thus the examples in (219-224) all suggest that Turkish null objects cannot be analyzed on a par with Chinese type null objects. That is, an operator-variable pair is not available for null objects in Turkish. Then the question: Given that null objects have certain pronominal features, but there is no agreement to recover them in the context, what licenses their occurrence in Turkish? Rizzi (1986) discusses the case of null-objects with arbitrary interpretation in Italian illustrated in (225): (225) Questa musica rende [______ allegri]. this music renders happy[+pl] “This music makes one happy.”

(Rizzi 1986: 507)

(226) Quale musica riconcilia _____ con se stessi? (Rizzi 1986: 514) “Which music reconciles with oneself” As seen in (226) null objects in Italian are possible to cooccur with other overt operators. This suggests that the null category cannot be a variable licensed by a covert topic operator as in Chinese. If it were, then (226) would be ungrammatical, which is not the case. Thus, Rizzi (1986) concludes that the null object is a pronominal element, i.e. pro. However, occurrence of object pro does not meet the two conditions that license the occurrence of subject pro in Italian, as defined by Rizzi (1986): (a) government by a head category such as Infl, and (b) recovery of the content of pro by the agreement specifications on the governing head. Neither condition holds for object pro. Note that it cannot be assumed that constructions such as (226) do not project an object, since the null object in Italian is syntactically active. As extensively discussed by Rizzi (1986) it can act as a controller, as a binder and as a subject of predication for adjunct and argument small clauses. This again raises the same question, as the one we asked for Turkish: What licenses pro in the absence of agreement morphology? Rizzi (1986) proposes that the features defining arb interpretation must be transferred onto the object position. This is done by assigning arb to the direct theta-role in the theta-grid of the verb. Within the current framework of this thesis, theta roles are not part of the lexical representation of verbs, but are introduced via functional heads. If we translate Rizzi’s proposal to the current

220


framework, it means that content of pro can only be recovered if argument drop is in situ, that is, in theta position, since the referential index of pro is assigned to the theta position. This implies that empty elements are always recoverable from the event structure. Based on this we would like to propose that an argument can only be null, if it can remain in theta positions. This immediately captures why it is possible to have null pro in the absence of any agreement morphology as in the case of null objects in Turkish, Italian and Japanese. Such a proposal, however, has immediate impli-cations for the relationship between agreement and pro-licensing. If being in theta position is enough to license an empty element, then the presence of agreement morphology ceases to be what licenses pro-drop, since event structure will be the licenser.48 This is supported by the possibility of having subject drop in languages like Turkish in the absence of agreement in adjunct clauses as illustrated in (114). Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that in SVO orders in languages like Italian and Spanish the subject is not in an A-position but in an A-bar position. It is the pronominal agreement which satisfies the EPP feature on T in such languages, thus there is no motivation for subjects to move into this position to check EPP. Furthermore, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (2001) discuss that Italian and Spanish also allow VOS. They show that in this order the object is in a higher position than the subject. Consider the following example: (227) Ha visitato [ogni soldati]i suai madre. has visited every solder his mother “His mother visited every soldier.” The coindexation possibilities in (227) imply that subjects can be left in their theta positions in Italian. Given the proposal above then it is expected for Italian to allow subject drop extensively. Presence of agreement on the verb could be seen due the EPP feature on T, but not as a triggerer of pro-drop. Also note that object drop in Italian is only restricted to non-referential objects (Rizzi 1986) and the one in Spanish is only possible for narrow scope indefinites as argued by Campos (1986). It can be assumed that objects have to stay in their theta positions due to their semantic properties. Therefore, it is expected for them to undergo pro-drop being licensed by the event structure. In languages like English, on the other hand, pro-drop is not possible even with there constructions with postverbal subjects, which are interpreted as taking narrow scope. Lasnik (1995) argues that such subjects also undergo


221

movement out of the VP domain. This is evidenced by the binding facts as in (228). In order for the subject to bind the VP adjunct, it should raise to a position higher than the VP. This implies that even such subjects cannot remain in their theta positions in English, therefore, pro-drop is not expected: (228) There arrived three meni on each otheri s horses. If this analysis is on the right track, then it can be extended to null topic languages like Chinese too. Given that all arguments can remain in their base positions in Chinese, a purely Neo-Davidsonian language, it is expected that all arguments can be dropped. It is true that the feature specifications of the empty categories in Chinese differ extensively from the ones found in Spanish, Italian and Turkish, however, the underlying reason for the presence of null arguments is the same, namely, their being in situ. Thus, we argue for a unified account of null argument phenomena cross-linguistically, which we believe is more advantegous with respect to acquisition, yet, we accept that feature specification of empty categories can be language specific.49 Now let us go back to the correlation between non-configurationality and null arguments. Given that non-configurational languages allow their arguments to remain in theta positions as argued in the sections above, then it is expected to have extensive argument drop in these languages. Thus, argument drop would be one of the inevitable characteristics of non-configurational languages such as Turkish, Hungarian and Japanese.50 4.4 An Overall look at (Non-)Configurationality We have defined non-configurationality as the lack of case-driven Agree. Languages which do not require case-checking with higher functional categories such as TP and vP will allow their arguments to remain in their theta positions. Since the theta roles count equal in terms of the event structure, a higher functional category such as the T head can target any of the arguments. This is how the flat structure effect is created, which is associated with the nonconfigurational phrase structure. If arguments can remain in theta positions in a language, as the case feature is available in that position, then it is possible to predict that the language will have: a) free word order b) argument drop c) pseudo incorporation d) no superiority effects


222

However, if a language exhibits case-driven Agree, it will not have free word order, argument drop and pseudo incorporation but superiority effects. As seen in the chart below, languages like English that do require casedriven Agree and languages like Turkish, Hungarian and Japanese which do not, exhibit opposite values for the four properties we have listed above: Table I: Free word order Argument drop Superiority effect Pseudo incorporation

English + -

Turkish + + +

Hungarian + + +

Japanese + + +

Free word order is a result of the movement of V to a higher position, such as T, which is above all the theta introducing functional phrases, in the absence of an intermediary case-assigning functional category such as vP. Since all theta roles count the same in terms of the event structure, either argument can move to the Spec position of the functional projection that the verb moves into. (229)

TP ei Spec T’ ei Theta Domain T ß [+case] [+case] [+case] 1…….. 2…… 3

Flat Structure Effect

However, if there is case-driven Agree with the hierarchically ordered functional projections TP>vP, movement into [Spec, TP] will only be possible for the element agreeing with T, as the hierarchy between the case-assigning functional categories will override the flat structure effect created by the theta domain as in (229). 51 That is, the element which agrees with vP will be defined as lower in the hiearchy in comparison to the one, which establishes an Agree relation with TP. Note that movement of V into T is not crucial here. What matters is the hierarchy established in case checking relations with respect to TP and vP. Therefore, whether there is V-to-T as in the case of French, or not as in English will not change the movement possibilities.


(230)

223

TP ei Spec T’ ei T vP [+case]ei Spec v’ ei v Theta Domain [+case]

Agree

Agree

1…….. 2

The contrast between the configurations in (229) and (230) immediately explains why there are no superiority effects in languages like Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian as opposed to the one observed in English.52 Since the arguments in English are hierarchically ordered due to case checking with higher functional heads, a functional head within the C domain can only target the argument higher in the hierarchy. As there is no such hierarchy in Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian any argument can be targeted. As for pseudo-incorporation, as shown in the table above, pseudoincorpo-ration is only possible in languages where there is no case-driven Agree, since pseudo-incorporation requires that the case feature be available in the theta position. As discussed in detail in section 1.2.2, when a predicative NP within the complex predicate domain checks off a case feature in theta position under head-movement, we get a pseudo-incorporated reading for the predicative NP. This case checking has to be in the theta domain for the predicative NP to be associated with the case feature. Only this way it is ensured that the predicative NP, which is not base-generated in a theta position, can be associated with a theta role. Therefore, pseudo-incorporation is only possible in languages where the case feature is avail-able in situ in theta positions such as Turkish, Hungarian and Japanese. However, if case is not available in the theta domain as in English, pseudo-incorporation will not be possible. Even if it is possible to merge a predicative NP as the complement of the lexical V within the complex predicate domain below all theta positions in English, it will not be associated with any theta role when this NP raises to v or

224


T under head-movement to check off case. Since it does not originate from a theta position but from the complex predicate domain, it cannot be not related to a theta projection in the absence of any chain formation with the theta domain. As for argument-drop, it is possible to have empty categories in the argument positions, if and only if arguments can remain in theta positions. This is the only way to recover an argument, that is, via the event structure. Thus, it is not possible to observe argument drop in languages like English, which do not allow their arguments to remain in situ, as opposed to the languages like Turkish, Hungarian and Japanese, where this is possible. At this point, Chinese illustrates a third category. As we have shown above, case-checking is irrelevant for Chinese since there is no such syntactic feature. Thus, the definition of non-configurationality given in (164) above does not hold for Chinese. Table 2: Free word order Pseudo-incorporation Argument drop Superiority effects

English +

Turkish + + + -

Hungarian + + + -

Japanese + + + -

Chinese + -

As seen in Table 2 above, Chinese exhibits a hybrid nature in terms of (non-) configurationality. In certain aspects it functions as non-configurational languages and in certain others, it is like configurational languages. In terms of free word order and pseudo-incorporation, Chinese patterns with English. In terms of argument drop and superiority effects on the other hand, it is like Turkish, Hungarian and Japanese (J. Huang: p.c.). As discussed above, in Chinese syntactic case is absent. That is, argumenthood is established in situ in theta positions for NPs. This is achieved by forming a Spec-Head relation with theta role introducing functional heads as defined by Lin (2001). This implies that arguments do not have to leave their base positions in Chinese either. This immediately explains why Chinese should not have superiority effects but allow pro-drop like non-configurational languages. However, unlike non-configurational languages, it does not allow pseudo-incorporation, since there is no case feature available to be checked in theta position by the predicative NP within the complex predicate [NP+V] under head-movement. As for free word order, there is no V-to-T in Chinese and this blocks the scrambling of NPs to an A-position. That is, Chinese V does not raise to a position which takes the whole theta domain under its scope, which would create the flat structure effect. This implies that the only


225

hierarchy that holds in Chinese is the theta hierarchy, which also forces a configurational structure based on the ordering of theta roles. Thus, as the discussion above shows depending on whether a language allows its arguments to remain in theta positions or not will immediately make certain predictions as to what other syntactic phenomena can be observed in that language. 5. Conclusion In this chapter we have argued that languages can exhibit parametric variation in terms of the domain where they introduce case and referentiality features to establish argumenthood. In languages like Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian case and referentiality are assigned by the same functional category within the domain of a single functional projection. This implies that NPs acquire full argument status in their theta positions and do not need to establish case-driven Agree with higher functional projections such as TP and vP. This creates a non-configurational phrase structure, since all the arguments will remain in their theta positions, which count hierarchically equal in terms of their relation to the verb within the event structure under the Neo-Davidsonian model. Note that unlike Japanese and Hungarian, Turkish does not have separate functional categories associated with case and referentiality. Case-assigning functional heads also introduce referentiality. In Japanese and Hungarian, on the other hand, referentiality is introduced by DPs, whereas case is introduced by theta role introducing functional heads. However, all three languages display the common pattern in terms of the domain these features are introduced to NPs, namely, within the domain of a single XP projection. This explains the common characteristics, such as scrambling, pseudo-incorporation, argument drop and the absence of superiority effects. In languages like English, on the other hand, case and referentiality assignment is not only mediated by independent functional categories, but also achieved within the domain of separate functional projections. As case and referentiality are co-dependent features, they need to be associated with each other at some point in the derivation. This triggers case-driven Agree with the hierarchically ordered functional projections TP and vP in languages like English. Thus, NPs acquire argumenthood hierarchically and therefore these languages exhibit a configurational phrase structure. Languages like Chinese, on the other hand, lack referentiality and case as syntactic features. Hence, in Chinese NPs are merged into the structure already as arguments. They only require a specification for the theta roles they bear, which are assigned by specific functional categories called light verbs.

226


If this variation is considered from a historical point of view, there is a continuum among languages in terms of the development/loss of functional categories associated with case and referentiality. As these two features are codependent, they could either be encoded together on a single functional head as in Turkish. Or they can be separated by the development of separate functional categories associated with each feature.53 However, the degree of this separation can vary from one language to the other. As in Hungarian and Japanese, they can be introduced by different functional heads but still within the domain of a single theta projection. Or they can be introduced within the domain of different functional projections as in English. Case and referentiality features can also be lexicalized and excluded from syntax as features. 6. Appendix: Case-driven Agree and Language Acquisition Such a parametric definition of non-configurationality proposed above has certain implications for language acquisition. The child acquiring a language first has to figure out what functional categories are available for case and referentiality assignment in the language. Then, s/he needs to set the parameter where case and referentiality assignment takes place, within the domain of a single projection without case-driven Agree, or in separate projections via case-driven Agree. Setting this parameter will help the child define the phrase structure of the language. This highlights the importance of defining the NP structure in a given language. As children start with acquiring names of things, that is, nouns, this will help them define the NP structure, which in turn will define the overall phrase structure. It is known that in early stages of acquisition children exhibit difficulties in acquiring structures which involve A-chains. It has been shown that children lack the ability to represent A-chains that link thematic subject and object positions (Borer & Wexler 1987, Miyamoto, Wexler, Aikawa & Miyagawa 1999, Babyonyshev, Ganger, Pesetsky & Wexler 2001). In the following, we will briefly summarize the literature on this issue, and show how this observation in language acquisition can follow from the parametric variation among languages we have introduced above in terms of the presence or absence of case-driven Agree. Under the continuity hypothesis by Pinker (1984), it is assumed that the fixed and unchanging principles of UG are constant over the course of development and are fully available to the child throughout language acquisition from the very beginning. Borer & Wexler (1987, 1992) have challenged this idea and proposed the Maturational Hypothesis, which assumes that certain


227

principles of the language are subject to maturation, just like any other instances of biological maturation. Borer & Wexler (1987) show that at an early age both English and Hebrew-speaking children form adjectival passives, which are lexical, but they cannot form verbal passives, which involve A-chain formation. They argue that this follows from the Maturational Hypothesis. At the early stages of acquisition the ability to form A-chains is not mature yet. Thus, even though the positive evidence is available for A-chains in adult speech, children fail to form A-chains, and make errors, such as the replacement of verbal passives with adjectival passives, which do not involve A-chains at the early stages of acquisition. Once the maturation occurs, relevant positive evidence allows the reanalysis of the structure the child has been using, arriving at the umarked adult rule. The study by Miyamoto, Wexler, Aikawa and Miyagawa (1999) also replicates the findings of Borer & Wexler (1987) for Japanese, that children fail to form A-chains at the early stages of acquisition. They show that omission of case markers in the early child language fully complies with the case omission rules in adult speech, except the one observed in unaccusative constructions. In Japanese nominative case on subjects cannot be dropped but accusative case on objects can be, when the object is adjacent to the verb (Saito 1985, Grimshaw & Mester 1988). The experiment by Miyamoto, Wexler, Aikawa and Miyagawa (1999) shows that children pattern with adults in terms of case omission in transitive and unergative constructions. However, children frequently and ungrammatically drop the nominative on the subject in unaccusative constructions. Miyamoto, Wexler, Aikawa and Miyagawa (1999) argue that this may be because children treat the complements of such verbs as objects, keeping them inside the VP. As this makes the subject, i.e. the underlying object, adjacent to the verb, case omission is allowed. This is in line with the proposal that children cannot form A-chains at early ages. Babyonyshev, Ganger, Pesetsky & Wexler (2001) also arrive at similar results in their experiments involving genitive of negation cases with unaccusatives in Russian. In Russian, certain transitive constructions and unaccusatives require a genitive marked object under negation. Unergatives, on the other hand, never allow genitive under negation, but only get nominative. Babyonyshev, Ganger, Pesetsky & Wexler (2001) show that children at the early stages of acquisition fail to have the genitive under negation in the case of unaccusatives. Instead they use nominative in parallel to the unergatives. Babyonyshev, Ganger, Pesetsky & Wexler (2001) interpret this as an instance of unavailability of forming A-chains. Since the child cannot form A-chains,

228


s/he maps the unergative structure, which does not involve any A-chains, onto unaccusatives. Under the proposal we make here, case-driven A-chain formation through Agree should be parametrically defined. It is not introduced as a principle subject to maturation. Languages vary based on whether they have case-driven Agree or not. It is known that parameters start with an unmarked value, and given positive evidence that shows that the unmarked value is incorrect, the parameter is switched to the marked value (Hyams 1983). In the case of pro-drop parameter, plus value for pro-drop is the unmarked one. Therefore, like Spanish children, English speaking children also start with a plus value for pro-drop at the early stages of acquisition. Spanish speaking children are correct, therefore, this value is not changed throughout acquisition. In the case of English children receive positive evidence showing that the plus pro-drop parameter value is incorrect, such as the presence of expletives. This causes children to set the parameter to the negative value through acquisition. Along these lines, we can interpret case-driven Agree (case-driven A-chain formation) as a parameter which needs to be set throughout acquisition. Based on the evidence from the acquisition studies on A-chain formation, we can claim that absence of A-chain formation is the unmarked value. That is, why both children speaking configurational languages such as English and children speaking non-configurational languages without case-driven Agree start without A-chains. Again based on positive evidence, children speaking configurational languages set the parameter as to include A-chain formation into their grammar. We accept that there is still a maturation requirement which needs to be observed for the parameter setting, since even though positive evidence is available from the very beginning, a considerable period of time is required for the child to set the parameter.


229

Notes 1

Unlike Lin (2001) and Borer (2004), which are both functional-based approaches, there is another constructionalist view proposed by Hale and Keyser (2002), which adopts a lexicalbased approach to the lexicon-syntax interface. Under the functional-based approach, functional projections establish the event structure and the interpretation of DP arguments is assigned via Spec-head relations within functional projections. Lexical-based approach, on the other hand, assumes that particular structuring of lexical categories feed into event structure and that DP arguments are arguments of lexical-headed predicates. The approach by Hale and Keyser (2002) argues for a syntactic theory of the lexicon where predicate-argument structure, theta-roles and verbal alternations can be accounted for. Unlike the functional-based approach, they assume that most verbs have specific underlying VP-shell structures they are associated with and that " -roles" are really just names for DS structural configurations. The semantic content of -roles (e.g., agentivity) follows from the constructions they represent such as: • Agent: Specifier of a VP with a VP complement. • Theme: Specifier of a VP with a PP or AP complement. Hale and Keyser (2002) explain the alternations observed in the argument structure of different classes of verbs (middle, transitives, inchoatives, etc.) based on underlying patterns that verbs are associated with. 2

For a discussion of the semantic motivation for the variant behavior of Turkish verbs see Nakipo lu-Demiralp (2001). 3

Note that this can be considered parallel to the [V+NP] raising proposed by Massam (2001) for Niuean pseudo incorporation. 4

As shown in (26), Turkish pseudo incorporation does not allow doubling of the pseudoincorporated NP with an adjunct unlike the Chamorro case illustrated in (31). This might be due to differences governing the distribution of adjuncts in both languages, which requires further investigation. Adjunct constructions are not within the scope of this study. Therefore, we leave this question for a further research. 5 Aygen (2002a) argues that bare nouns such as köpek in (33) are null case marked and as such they may be nominative. Note that nominative is zero marked in Turkish. However, unless the influence of the referentiality feature for the establishment of argumenthood is independently taken into consideration, claiming that these bare nouns are case marked implies that they are on a par with regular syntactic subjects. However, as seen in Chapter II, preverbal bare nouns are non-referential predicative categories and do not act as syntactic arguments. Assuming that these bare nouns are case-marked the way any syntactic argument is case-marked, as claimed by Aygen (2002a) cannot capture the semantic difference in terms of referentiality between full subject arguments and preverbal bare nouns, as well as, their non-argument nature syntactically. 6

Note there are similar constructions in Turkish which on the surface look very similar to light verb constructions, yet, in these constructions unlike the case observed above accusative case assignment to another argument is strictly blocked:

230


(Kornfilt 2003: 148) (i) a. Hasan Ali-ye dua et-tir-di. Hasan Ali-dat prayer do-caus-past “Hasan made Ali pray.” b. *Hasan Ali-yi dua et-tir-di. Hasan Ali-acc prayer do-caus-past “Hasan made Ali pray.” However, we argue that these constructions can be analyzed as cases of pseudo incorporation. The complex predicate dua et- can be considered as consisting of a complement noun dua and a main verb et-. This analysis is supported by the availability of a corresponding sequence with an unincorporated complement surfacing with accusative such as: (ii) Hep mutlu olun, in allah! Hasan siz-e bu dua-y et-ti. always happy be hopefully Hasan you-dat this prayer-acc do-past “Always be happy! Hasan said this prayer for you.” This implies that dua et- “to pray” should also be considered to consist of a complement getting accusative case and a lexical verb. Thus, unavailability of accusative to the agent in (ia) can be considered as a case where the NP dua in the complex dua et- checks off the weak case on ThemeP, thus blocks accusative case assignment to another argument in the structure. Therefore, these structures should not be considered as true light verb constructions but they need to be analyzed as on a par with pseudo incorporation constructions. 7

Aygen (1998) and Kelepir (2001) assume that in Turkish negation is introduced by NegP projected directly above VP, which includes all arguments of the verb: (i) TP wo T’ wo NegP T wo Neg’ wo VP Neg wo Subject V’ wo Object V Adopting this to the framework proposed here NegP has to be introduced immediately above all theta role related projections as shown in (54). 8

Note that we assume that the EPP requirement of TP is checked via the pronominal agreement on the verb. (See Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998 and Öztürk 1999, 2002a). 9

See Taylan (1984), Kelepir (1996), Kornfilt (1996), Kural (1997) and Göksel (1998), Aygen (2000a, 2000b, 2002a) for postverbal constituents and right adjunction in Turkish.


231

10

Verbal grammatical markers in Turkish generally have overlaping functions denoting tense/aspect/mood simultaneously. See Yava , F. (1980), (1982), George & Kornfilt (1981), Enç (1987), Aksu-Koç (1988), Sezer (1991), (2002), Kural (1993), Kennelly (1997), Taylan (1997, 2001), Kornfilt (1997), Aygen (1998, 2002a), Öztürk (2000a), Özsoy (2002), Kelepir (2001), Arslan (2001) among others. 11

This test has been adopted for Turkish from Miyagawa (2001).

12

It is also possible to have pseudo incorporation with intransitives (unergatives and unaccusatives) in Turkish. In these constructions as well nothing will be merged into [Spec, TP]: (i) Bahçe-de çocuk oynuyor. (unergative) Garden-loc child play “There is child-playing in the garden.” TP wo T’ wo AgentP T wo çocuk oynuyori Ag’ wo Complex Predicate à VP Ag [+Case, -Ref] wo ti V’ ti wo NP V In (i) above as the Agent head lacks [+referentiality] feature, the NP within the complex predicate can check the weak case feature, when the verb complex (V-bar) is raised to Agent head. This leads to the NP in the verb complex to be interpreted as the Agent. (ii) Bahçe-de domates yeti iyor. (unaccusative) Garden-loc tomato grow “There is tomato growing in the garden.”

232


TP wo T’ wo ThemeP T [+EPP] wo domates yeti i theme’ wo Complex Predicate à VP theme [+Case, -Ref] wo ti V’ ti wo NP V Since the Theme head is marked only for case but not for referentiality the NP in the verb complex can check the weak case on Theme head and is interpreted as the theme. 13

For a discussion of nominalizers in Turkish see Lees (1965), Sezer (1991), Kural (1993), Kennelly (1996), Öztürk (2000b), Aygen (2002a) among others. 14

Aygen (1998) argues that T and Aspect heads in Turkish form the hybrid head T/A.

15

See Boeckx (2004) for the proposal that Agree always requires movement of the agreeing category. 16

Note that such a derivation of case morphology implies that in Turkish both structural case checking and inherent case assignment take place in situ. That is, inherent and structural cases are very parallel to one another. The only difference is that inherent case is realized with fixed morphology, whereas the structural case is realized relative to the presence of other cases in the clause. 17

The issue of surface morphological case marking in causative constructions following a case hierarchy introduced by Comrie (1976) has also received a lot of attention in the literature on Turkish (Lewis 1967, Aissen 1974, Zimmer 1976, Taylan 1979, Dede 1984, Knecht 1986, Göksel 1990, 1993, Kural 1996, among others). 18

Göksel (1993) discusses the semantics of causative constructions in Turkish under the framework called the Labelled Deductive System. She proposes that causative affix in Turkish has a declarative content and has the type specification tà (e à t). See Göksel (1993) for details. 19

Göksel (1993) argues under the Labelled Deductive Model that case markers in Turkish are instructions on building structure and identify the combinatoral properties of arguments. 20

Note that in finite embedded clauses in Turkish the highest theta role related NP projection can also get genitive case:


(i)

233

okudu u]-nu biliyor. Ali [Ahmet-in kitabAli Ahmet-gen book-acc read-acc knows “Ali knows that Ahmet read the book.”

21

As discussed bove it is possible to causativize theme incorporation cases as illustrated in example (83). However, agent incorporation cases cannot undergo causativization in Turkish as in (iib), though their referential counterparts can as in (ib): (i) a. Köpek Ahmet-i ss r-d . dog Ahmet-acc bite-past “The dog bit Ahmet.” b. Ay e köpe -e Ahmet-i ss r-t-t . Ay e dog-dat Ahmet-acc bite-caus-past “Ay e made the dog bit Ahmet.” (ii) a. Ahmet-i köpek ss r-d . Ahmet-acc dog bite-past “Ahmet got dog-bitten.” b. *Ay e Ahmet-i köpek ss r-t-t . Ay e Ahmet-acc dog bite-caus-past “Ay e made Ahmet get dog-bitten.” As Example (ib) illustrates the agent köpek “dog” is associated with dative case, this implies that the pseudo-incorporated agent NP, which undergoes head movement along with the verb in (iib) also has to check case which will be spelled out as the default dative in morphology. However, this structure is not allowed. The unavailability of such agent incorporation in casusative constructions is neither syntactic nor semantic. Syntactically it is possible to have the features [+case, -referential] at the head of the functional projection which is associated with dative case. Semantically, all theta roles have the equal status, hence any one of them can be introduced as non-referential. Therefore, we believe that the lack of such structures follows from the limitations of morphology. The case checked by the incorporated agent NP is a weak case deprived of the refe-rentiality feature, which needs to be realized as dative. Turkish lacks morphology for weak dative. Since there is no dative morphology which can be assigned to an NP passing through a head position, such a structure cannot be spelled out in PF. Inherent dative also exhibits the same case. Incorporation of inherent dative is not allowed again because of the lack of morphology for weak dative: (iii) a. Ali çocu -a kitabver-di. b. *Ali kitab- [complex predicateçocuk ver-di.] Ali child-dat book-acc give-past Ali book-acc child give-past “Ali gave the book to the child.” “Ali did child-giving the book.” However, incorporation of datives is attested in other languages, where there is no such restriction on morphology. In Hungarian datives can incorporate. This supports the morphological account of Turkish facts: (iv) gyerek-nek adtam cukorká-t. (A. Csirmaz: p.c.) child-dat gave-1ps candy-acc “I did child-giving the candy.” 22

Note that even though there is no Agent NP available in the structure AgentP is still projected, which leads to the fact that in such passive constructions, Agent is always implied. Therefore it is possible to refer to the agent even though it is not overtly expressed:

234


(i) Bu y lki aç kartt rma-da tablolar yüksek fiyata sat- l-d . Bu-ndan çok kar etti-ler. this year auction-loc paintings high price sell-pass-past this-from very profit did-3pl “The paintings were sold for a very high price in the auction this year. (They) made a big profit out of this.” 23

Göksel (1990, 1993) also independently proposes a movement-free account of passives in Turkish within the framework of Labelled Deductive System. 24

Based on anti-locality constraint, Lee (2004) argues against Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) and proposes that there is no need for a low goal position in Japanese, but the basic order is Goal>Theme in Japanese, where the goal is at a high applicative projection. 25

Note that the word order in (114c) is [Subject – Indirect Object – Verb], however the same sentence can also be uttered as [Indirect Object – Subject – Verb], which is considered to be the most natural word order by native speakers. (This is also the case in languages like Japanese (H. Hoji p.c.)) This provides further support for the lack of movement in the derivation of passivized double-object constructions in Turkish. I thank Heidi Harley for bringing this to my attention. 26

It has been claimed that subjects cannot undergo scrambling (Saito 1985), as evidenced by the Korean facts below: (i) a. Maykcwu-luli John-i ti sey-pyeng masi-ess-ta. beer-acc John-nom three-CLbottle drink-past-dec “John drank three bottles of beer.” b. *Haksayng-tul-ii maykcwu-lulj ti sey-pyeng tj masi-ess-ta. student-nom beer-acc three-CLperson drink-past-dec “Three students drank beer.” (Ko 2004:1) As seen in (ia) the subject can intervene between the object and the object-oriented numeral quantifier, however, the object cannot occur in between the subject and the subject oriented numeral quantifier, implying that the subject cannot scramble over the scrambled object. Ko (2004), starting from the evidence given for subject scrambling discussed in Miyagawa (1989), convincingly shows that subjects can scramble: (ii) Haksayng-tul-ii pwunmeynghi ti sey-pyeng maykcwu-lul masi-ess-ta. student-nom evidently three-CLperson beer-acc drink-past-dec “Evidently, three students drank beer.” (Ko 2004:2) As seen in (ii) a subject oriented numeral quantifier can be licensed across a sentential adverb. Therefore, we conclude that it is not impossible to argue that in Turkish, too, subjects can scramble. For details see Ko (2004). 27

Ishihara (2001) illustrates this for Japanese:

(i)

a. Taroo-ga [VP HONO-O katta] Taro-nom book-acc bought. b. Hono-oi TAROO-GA [VP ti katta] book-acc Taro-nom bought. c. Taroo-ga kyoo [VP HONO-O katta]


235

Taro-nom today book-acc bought. d. Hono-oi Taroo-ga KYOO [VP ti katta] book-acc Taro-nom today bought. As seen in (ia) the object predictably receives nuclear stress, whereas in (ib) due to scrambling stress shifts to Taroo. Stress assignment to subject is possible since the verb also undergoes raising in Japanese as argued, which makes the subject and the object at the same height syntactically. In (id) on the other hand, the stress falls on to the adverb, which is lower than the subject or the raised verb. 28

See also Aygen (2000a, 2000b, 2002a).

29

Following Miyagawa (2001), Aygen (2000) argues that there is A-scrambling in Turkish and movement into [Spec, TP] is EPP-driven in Turkish. However, as discussed in Chapter III, movement to [Spec, TP] is not obligatory in Turkish and EPP is checked via verbal agreement. Therefore, an EPP-driven scrambling analysis along the lines of Japanese is incompatible with Turkish. 30

It is possible that this displacement takes place by V-to-T-to-C raising. However, T-to-C movement is a debatable issue in Turkish. Kural (1993) argues that there is T-to-C in Turkish. Aygen (2001, 2002a), on the other hand, argues that T-to-C does not exist in Turkish. The NP in [NP+V] in pseudo-incorporation can also be contrastively focused: (i) Ali K TAP okudu, dergi de il. Ali BOOK read, magazine not. “Ali did BOOK-reading not magazine-(reading).” Considering that contrastive focus is also available in pseudo-incorporation, it can be assumed that the proposal by Kural (1993) holds for Turkish and the NP in [NP+V] can check off the focus feature by the movement to C, similar to the verb movement, which checks off the case feature in pseudo-incorporation. 31

Note that such an analysis of preverbal focus in terms of A-bar displacement of constituents into the CP domain can also be extended to Wh-questions in Turkish. Turkish is generally assumed to be a wh-in situ language but as shown by Göksel & Özsoy (2000), wh-words can occur either immediately preverbally or in some other position within the focus field, where they can get focal stress. Kural (1992) also states that it is not obvious whether the nonimmediately preverbal occurrence of wh-words is due to the movement of the wh-word into that position or due to the movement of other constituents. Therefore, it is not obvious whether Turkish is a truly wh-in situ language. Under the displacement account given here, it can be assumed that just like focused constituents, wh-words are also realized in the CP domain, thus, they move into that position, which implies that Turkish is not wh-in situ but exhibits whmovement. Deriving a conclusion on this issue, however, requires further investigation, which does not fall into the scope of this study. See Akar (1990) and Arslan (1999) for wh-questions in Turkish. 32

Miyagawa (2004) proposes that in Japanese if the movement into [Spec, TP] is triggered by identificational focus in tandem with EPP, then the phrase which moves into this position, is interpreted as the focus of the sentence. The same can be assumed for Turkish that the phrase

236


receiving contrastive focus remains in [Spec, TP] and from this position it checks off the contrastive focus feature on the Foc head via Agree if there is no T-to-C as claimed by Aygen (2001, 2002a). Whether Turkish allows such a possibility requires further investigation. 33

Note that we are mainly focusing on clause-internal scrambling in simplex clauses Turkish. For an analysis of subject/object asymmetries in long distance scrambling under V-to-T see Aygen (2000a, 2000b, 2002a). 34

As discussed above, in addition to A-scrambling, Turkish also exhibits extensive A-bar scrambling. We believe that this also has to do with the absence of case-driven Agree with higher functional projections in the establishment of argumenthood in Turkish. Absence of case-driven Agree implies that phrase structure is built up without any chain formation with higher functional categories. However, in languages like English, due to the presence of casedriven Agree, phrase structure is already built by chain formation. It can be assumed that chain formation is more costly in terms of processing. Therefore, English cannot make use of A-bar movement as extensively as Turkish. As in English the phrase structure is already built by chain formation adding a great number of A-bar chains to A-chains can be costly in terms of sentence processing. However, as Turkish builds up its phrase structure without any resort to chain formation, processing A-bar chains is relatively easier compared to English. This can be interpreted as that there is a quota for chain formation in languages based on sentence processing. 35

Such a proposal closely relates to the ideas developed by Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988) that is in languages such as Japanese there is no forced agreement between the arguments and certain functional projections. Scrambling and absence of wh-movement in languages like Japanese is a result of absence of agreement. Note that Boeckx (2003b) also elaborates on this view and proposes that scrambling is a Move operation under Match in the absence of Agree. That is, -feature checking under Agree is not available, but movement of the scrambled element is simply due to Match. 36

This raises the question as to the status of bare nouns advantage or fun found in the idiomatic expressions take advantage of, make fun of in English. It is possible to argue that these nonreferential nouns are also predicative in nature. Then the question is whether they can be interpreted as cases of pseudo incorporation in English. However, even though these NPs are non-referential syntactically they are still visible as arguments, unlike the case of pseudoincorporated NPs in Turkish. Consider: (i) They took advantage of John. (ii) A lot of advantage was taken of John. As seen above, it is possible to passivize these constructions, which suggests that the bare noun is a true syntactic object. Furthermore, semantically it is possible to have other predicative NPs in argument positions in English such as narrow scope indefinites (van Geenhoven 1998, among others). Therefore, we argue that bare nouns in these constructions, though predicative in nature, do occur in syntactic argument positions and cannot be pseudoincorporated NPs. Such constructions can be analyzed on a par with applicative constructions. Therefore, they do not construct counter evidence for the proposal that pseudo incorporation can only be found in languages where case is available in theta positions.


237

37

Note that this implies that projection of [Spec, TP] is optional in Hungarian, too. Similar to Turkish Hungarian also exhibits impersonal passives without overt expletives and pseudo incorporation of agents where agents do not function as syntactic subjects as shown in (i) and (ii) respectively. This also implies that the projection of [Spec, TP] in Hungarian is not obligatory: (i) Fut-nak. (A. Csirmaz: p.c.) run-3pl “Running is happening.” (ii) János-t kutya harapdalja. J-acc dog bite-frequentative-3sg “Janos underwent dog-biting.” 38

Note that we are also adopting a Neo-Davidsonian phrase structure for Hungarian. This can be supported by the presence of idioms with external arguments to the exclusion of internal arguments in Hungarian, as this implies not only the external argument but also the internal argument should be disassociated from the lexical representation of the verb: (i) Jánost majd meg utotte a guta. (Kiss 2002:32) J-acc almost VM hit the stroke “John was upset.” 39

Note that Bo kovi and Takahashi (1998) explain the A-bar movement effects of long distance scrambling in Japanese via base generating the scrambled element in its surface position, then lowering it into its theta position for case and theta role assignment. Bo kovi (2004), furthermore, argues that such base generation is possible only for NPs but not DPs, since DPs but not necessarily NPs must establish theta relations as soon as possible, that is in overt syntax. Thus, he concludes that scrambling is only possible in languages without morphological articles. However, as clearly shown in the previous section, Hungarian is a language with overt morphological determiners, which does exhibit scrambling. Furthermore, as in the case of Japanese (or in Slavic languages (Progova 1998, Rappaport 1998, Leko 1999), even languages without morphological determiners can exhibit convincing evidence for the presence of an abstract DP projection. Therefore, generality of such an approach to scrambling is not convincing. 40

Note that Miyagawa (2001) originally did not assume that EPP can be checked by PPs in Japanese, but in the later versions of his proposal he adopts EPP checking via PPs (S. Miyagawa: p.c.). 41

Based on the cross-linguistic evidence from Turkish, Hungarian, English and Chinese, we represent that also in Japanese all arguments including the internal ones are introduced by separate functional heads, thus Japanese can also be represented with the Neo-Davisonian model. 42

Shibatani & Kageyama (1988) argue that it is possible to pseudo-incorporate agent or theme NPs both in unergatives and unaccusatives. However, the grammaticality judgments vary vastly from speaker to speaker. Therefore, we conclude that the nature of pseudo incorporation in Japanese requires further investigation.

238


43

Under such an account (193) and (194) can be represented as the following, where the verb undergoes movement into theta role introducing functional heads Theme and Agent respectively. Note that [Spec, AgentP] is filled with an empty category, which leads to the pronominal subject interpretation when the verb precedes the theme: (i) AgentP wo ec Agent’ wo openi ThemeP washi wo door Theme’ clothes wo Theme VP wo V’ wo V ti

44

Note that whether Chinese has a TP is also a debatable issue due to lack of morphological evidence (cf. Li & Thompson 1981). 45

Note that given that the subjects in (190) and (191) are specific, it can be assumed that they have also moved into a topic position above their theta positions. 46

Existential type unaccusatives shown in (ii) in Chinese require specific mention at this point: (i) na san-ge keren lai-le. that three-cl guest come-LE “These three guests came.” (ii) lai-le san-ge keren. come-LE three-cl guest “There came three guests.” The non-existential unaccusative construction in (i) can be analyzed in accordance with the structure in (195) proposed for ergatives and pseudo-passives without any recourse to case-driven movement of the subject. Note that this does not rule out the possibility that the subject might have raised to a higher Topic position leaving its theta position in (i). What is crucial is that such a movement is not case-driven. However, for (ii) in order to get the right word order we need to assume that the verb undergoes movement into a higher functional head above ThemeP, so that the verb can precede the non-specific subject. Note that being nonspecific this NP cannot move to a preverbal position but it is in situ. Therefore, the verb raises to a higher head. However, as discussed above, the functional head cannot be the T head due to lack of V-to-T in Chinese. What this head actually is and what the motivation for such a raising is not within the scope of this thesis. See Huang (1997) for verb movement in Chinese.


239

47

Taylan (1986) states that in certain cases, depending on the discourse where the subject has a topic changing function, the occurrence of an overt pronoun as the subject is obligatory and the presence of an empty pronoun leads to an ungrammatical structure. Similarly, Enç (1986) claims that the occurrence of the overt pronouns in Turkish is not optional or redundant, as in each case they have certain pragmatic functions within the discourse which need to be learnt by the speakers of Turkish. 48

Note that Romero (1999) also makes a similar proposal for the licensing of null arguments in the absence of agreement morphology in languages like Turkish and Japanese. He assumes that thematic projection is uniform and this allows recovery of the empty categories. However, he assumes that agreement is still crucial for pro-drop in languages like Italian and Spanish. 49 Chinese allows variables, Turkish, Spanish and Italian, on the other hand allow pro. Hoji (1998) assume that null object in Japanese is [+referential]. 50

Note that Boeckx (2003b) argues that if overt or covert pronouns are all D’s à la Postal (1966) only languages which do not have overt determiners would allow null arguments, as these arguments will be interpreted as null Ds. However, such a proposal fails to capture languages like Hungarian, which is not only pro-drop but it has morphological determiners. 51

Note that Boeckx (2004) proposes that there is no sole Agree. That is, Agree always requires movement of the agreeing category. 52

Note that we are mainly focusing on superiority effects in simplex clauses, not in complex clauses. 53

Van Gelderen (1993) proposes that in Old English case assignment was of inherent type, which leads NPs to remain in their theta positions. She further argues that there is no AgroP (vP in our terms) in Old English, which introduces structural object case. This supports the proposal made here.

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this study we have mainly focused on two major issues: a) the interaction between case and referentiality in syntax and b) the implications of this interaction for phrase structure. Our main aim was to show that languages exhibit parametric variation in the ways case and referentiality are assigned and this accounts for the phrase-structural differences observed among them. In the literature two conditions have been proposed for a predicative NP to become a syntactic argument: (i) assignment of referentiality by a functional ca-tegory, e.g. by an overt or covert D (Longobardi 1994, among others); (ii) case assignment to make an NP become visible for theta role assignment by a functional category e.g. by T or v (Chomsky 1995, among others). Hence, an NP should be checked for case and referentiality to become an argument. These two conditions have been proposed independently in the literature. We have shown that case and referentiality as the two conditions on argumenthood are closely related and they need to be associated with each other in syntax. However, the way this association is implemented can vary from language to language yielding differences in phrase structure. As argued in Chapter II, we have argued that Turkish differs from English in terms of the functional categories it has associated with case and referentiality features. In English, determiners are responsible for referentiality assignment, whereas TP and vP mediate case assignment. We show that in Turkish, on the other hand, there are no determiners, but case assignment is also responsible for referentiality assignment. In other words, in Turkish referentiality assignment is dependent on case-assignment. Three types of complex predicate constructions with immediately preverbal bare nouns provide evidence for this: pseudo-incorporation, idioms and light verb constructions. In a language like Turkish, where there is neither syntactic nor morphological motivation for the presence of overt determiners, the requirement that all NPs are referentiality assigned to become arguments is contingent upon case-assignment, as case encodes referentiality. If an NP is merged at a position where case assignment is possible it is type-shifted into an argument as it will be both case and referentiality assigned. However, if it is merged at a position where case is not available such as the complement

242


position of a lexical verb the NP will retain its predicative nature and form a complex predicate along with the verb as in the case of pseudo-incorporation, light verb constructions and idioms. In Chapter III, we have investigated what kind of implications the proposal that case is a type-shifter can have for the inventory of case-assigning functional projections in Turkish. Since referentiality is dependent on case assignment in Turkish, this implies that case and referentiality features must be assigned by the same functional categories. We have introduced a Neo-Davidsonian phrase structure for Turkish where all arguments are introduced by theta-role introducing functional heads in parallel to Lin (2001) and Borer (2004). We have proposed that these theta-role introducing functional heads assign both case and referentiality features. Predicative NPs merged at Spec positions of these functional heads are type-shifted into arguments since both of the requirements on argumenthood are met. Variance in the feature specification of these heads leads to pseudo-incorpo-ration. Such an analysis implies that in Turkish there is no case driven Agree with higher functional heads such as TP and vP. We have argued that phrase structure of Turkish does not have an identifiable vP layer. TP is the only relevant func-tional category for case. Yet, it does not play a role in case checking but only in the morphological realization of it. Furthermore, in relation to the presence or absence of Agree with higher functional categories cross-linguistically we have introduced a typology based the domain where case and referentiality features are assigned crosslinguistically. Languages differ in terms of the domain case and referentiality features are checked and this has certain implications for their phrase structures. In languages like Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian case and referentiality are assigned by the same functional category within the domain of a single functional projection. This implies that NPs acquire full argument status in their theta positions and they do not need to establish case-driven Agree with higher functional projections such as TP and vP. This creates a non-configurational phrase structure, since all the arguments will remain in their theta positions, which count hierarchically equal in terms of their relation to the event structure under Neo-Davidsonian model. Thus, all three languages display the common pattern in terms of the domain these features are introduced to NPs. This explains the common characteristics, such as scrambling, pseudo-incorporation, argument drop and the absence of superiority effects. In languages like English, on the other hand, case and referentiality assignment is achieved within the domain of separate functional projections. As case and referentiality are co-dependent features, they need to be associated with each other at some point in the derivation. This triggers case-driven Agree with

CONCLUDING REMARKS

243

hierarchically ordered functional projections TP and vP in languages like English. Thus, NPs acquire argumenthood hierarchically via forming A-chains and therefore these languages exhibit a configurational phrase structure. Therefore, they do not exhibit free word order, argument drop, pseudoincorporation like Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian, but they have superiority effects. Languages like Chinese, on the other hand, lack referentiality and case as syntactic features. Hence, in Chinese NPs are merged into the structure already as arguments. They only require a specification for the theta roles they bear, which are assigned by specific functional categories called light verbs. This causes NPs to remain in their theta positions, but due to the absence of case morphology and V-to-T movement scrambling is not allowed in Chinese and a configurational phrase structure emerges along the lines of the English case. Yet, given that arguments can remain in situ, Chinese can allow argument drop and does not exhibit superiority effects similar to the case in Turkish, Japanese and Hungarian. Thus, Chinese exhibits hybrid properties in terms of (non-)configurationality.

References

Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality and Adposition Stranding. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Abney, S. P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Aissen, J. 1974. The Syntax of Causative Constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University. Akar, D. 1990. Wh-constructions in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Akmajian, A. 1970. Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Aksu-Koç, A. 1988. The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parameterizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539. Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 2001. “The subject in situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations”. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193-231. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York. Arslan, C. Z. 1999. Approaches to Wh-Structures in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Arslan, C. Z. 2001. “The perfect in Turkish”. Proceedings of the Perfect Perspectives on Aspect, University of Utrecht. Aydemir, Y. 2004. “Are Turkish preverbal bare nouns syntactic arguments?” Linguistic Inquiry 35: 465-474. Aygen, G. 1998. Split Infl Hypothesis in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis. Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Aygen, G. 1999. Specificity and Subject-Object Positions / Scope Interactions in Turkish. Ms., Harvard University. Aygen, G. 2000a. “Extractibility and the nominative case feature on tense”. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Aygen, G. 2000b. “T-to-C: extractable subjects and EPP”. Proceedings of

REFERENCES

245

WECOL 2000, Fresno University, California, 65-80. Aygen, G. 2002a. Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University. Aygen, G. 2002b Semantics of case: syntactic implications of specificity and scope at a phrasal level. Ms., Harvard University. Aygen, G. 2003. “Are there non-restrictive pre-relatives in Turkish?” Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8, C. Boeckx, C. Bowern and J. Jasanoff (eds.), 199-215. Babyonyshev, M., J. Ganger, D. Pesetsky and K. Wexler. 2001. “The maturation of grammatical principles: evidence from Russian unaccusatives”. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 1- 43. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Baker, M. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, M. 2001. “The natures of non-configurationality”. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.), Blackwell, 407-438. Baker, M. 2003. Nominalization, complementation and polysynthesis. Talk given at CASTL-kick-off Conference, University of Tromsø, Norway. Baker, M. and O. T. Stewart. 2002. A Serial Verb Construction without Constructions. Ms., Rutgers University. Banguo lu, T. 1990. Türkçenin Grammeri. Ankara: TDK Yay nlar . Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell. 1997. “Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every”. Ways of Scope Taking, A. Szabolsci, Dodrecht: Kluwer, 71-98. Besler, D. 1999. The Question Particle mI- and Movement in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bo aziçi University, stanbul. Biktimir, T. 1986. “Impersonal passives and –ArAk constructions in Turkish”. Studies in Turkish Linguistics, D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds.), John Benjamins, 53-76. Boeckx, C. 2003a. “Case matters”. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, C. Boeckx, C. Bowern and J. Jasanoff (eds.), 159-197. Boeckx, C. 2003b. “Free word order in minimalist syntax”. Folia Linguistica 37: 77-102. Boeckx, C. 2004. Bare syntax. Ms., Harvard University. Borer, H. 1983. “The projection principle and rules of morphology”. Proceedings of NELS 14, Amherst, 16-33. Borer, H. 2001. Plurals as classifiers, Talk given at MIT. Borer, H. 2004. Structuring Sense: An Exo-skeletal Trilogy. Oxford University

246

REFERENCES

Press. Borer, H. and K. Wexler. 1987. “The maturation of syntax”. Parameter Setting, T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 123-172. Borer, H., and K. Wexler. 1992. “Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 147-189. Bo kovi , . 2003. “On left branch extraction”. Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Descriptions of Slavic Languages 4, P. Kosta, J. Biaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist and M Zygis (eds.). Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 543-577. Bo kovi , . 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion and scrambling. Ms., University of Connecticut. Bo kovi , . and D. Takahashi. 1998. “Scrambling and last resort”. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347-366. Brisson, C. 1998. Distributivity, Maximality and Floating Quantifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University. Bruening, B. 2001. Raising to object and proper movement. Ms., University of Delaware. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Burzio, L. 2000. “Anatomy of a generalization”. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, Eric Reuland (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 195-240. Campos, H. 1986. “Indefinite object drop”. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 354-359. Carlson, G. 1977. “A unified analysis of the English bare plural”. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413-457. Castaneda, H. N. 1967. “Comments on Donald Davidson’s the logical form of action sentences”. The Logic of Decision and Action, N. Rescher (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 104-112. Chao, Y. R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cheng, L.L 1989. Aspectual licensing of pro in Chinese. Ms., MIT. Cheng, L.L. and R. Sybesma. 1999. “Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP”. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509-542. Chierchia, G. 1998. “Reference to kinds across languages”. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405. Chomsky, N. 1976. “Conditions on rules of grammar”. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303-351. Chomsky, N. 1980. “On binding”. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1-46. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use.

REFERENCES

247

Prageger, N.Y. Chomksy, N. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”. The View from Building 20. MIT Press, 1-52. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge. Chomsky, N. 1999. “Derivation by phase”. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, MITWPL. Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: the framework”. Step by step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. M. Micheals and J. Uriagereka (eds.), MIT Press. 89-155. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Beyond explanatory adequacy”. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20, MITWPL. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Chung, S. and W. A. Ladusaw 2004. Restriction and Saturation. MIT press, Cambridge. Cinque, G. 1993. “A null theory of phrase and compound stress”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-297. Cinque, G. 1994. “On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP.” Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of R. S. Kayne, G. Cinque, J. Koster, J-Y Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini (eds.), 85-107. Comrie, B. 1976. “The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences”. The Grammar of Causative Constructions, M.Shibatani (ed.. Syntax and Semantics 6, Academic Press, 261-312. Crisma, P. 1997. Nominals without the articles in the Germanic languages. Ms., Universita Di Padova. Davidson, D. 1967. “The logical form of action sentences”. The Logic of Decision and Action, N.Rescher (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 81-95. Dayal, V. 2002. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Ms., Rutgers University. Dayal, V. 2003. A Semantics for Pseudo-incorporation. Ms., Rutgers University. Dede, M. 1984. “Causatives in Turkish”. Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference, E. Taylan and A. A. Koç (ed.) Bo aziçi University Press. de Hoop, H. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Garland Publishing. Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

248

REFERENCES

Di Sciullo, A.M. and R. Slabakova 2001. “Quantification and aspect”. Proceedings of Perspectives on Aspect, Utrecht 2001. Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht. Emre, A. C. 1931. Yeni bir Türkçe Grammeri Hakk nda Lay ha [A statement on a new grammar method]. stanbul Devlet Matbaas , Ankara. Enç, M. 1986. “Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish”. Studies in Turkish Linguistics, D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds.), John Benjamins, 195-208. Enç, M. 1987. “Anchoring conditions for tense”. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633657. Enç, M. 1991. “Semantics of specificity”. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25. Erdal, M. 2000. “Clitics in Turkish”. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (ed.), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 41-51. Ergin, M. 1975. Türk Dil Bilgisi [Turkish Grammar]. Bo aziçi Yay nlar , stanbul. Erkü, F. 1983. Discourse Pragmatics and Word Order in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesotta. Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swart 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation: From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. CSLI – Stanford. Fodor, J. and I. Sag 1982. “Referential and quantificational indefinites”. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355-398. Fox, D. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and its Application. Doctoral Dissertation MIT, Cambridge. Fukui, N. 1995. Theory of Projection in Syntax. Center for the Study of Language and Information - Japanese Linguistics. Fukui, N. and Y. Takano 1998. “Symmetry in syntax: merge and demerge”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27-86. Fukui, N. and Y. Takano 2000. “Nominal structure: an extension of the symmetry principle”. The Derivation of VO and OV, P. Svenonius (ed.), John Benjamins, 219-254. Gencan, T. N. 1979. Dilbilgisi [The Grammar]. Ankara Üniversitesi Bas mevi. George, L. and J. Kornfilt 1981. “Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish”. Binding and Filtering, F. Heny (ed.), Cambridge: MIT Press, 105-127. Givón, T. 1978. “Definiteness and referentiality”. Universals of Human Language, J. Greenberg (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 291-330.

REFERENCES

249

Ghomeshi, J. 1999. The variable locu of referentiality in noun phrases. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, Universite de Sherbrooke. Göksel, A. 1990. “Remarks on passivization in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, B. Rona (ed.), SOAS, 61-74. Göksel, A. 1993. Levels of Representation and Argument Structure in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, SOAS, University of London. Göksel, A. 1998. “Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, L. Johanson, E. A. Csato, V. Locke, A. Menz and D. Winterling (eds.), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 85-106 Göksel, A. and A.S. Özsoy 2000. “Is there a focus position in Turkish?” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 12-14, 1998, Oxford University, eds. A. Göksel and C. Kerslake. Göksel, A. and S. Özsoy 2003. “dA: a focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish”. Lingua 113: 1143-1167. Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester 1988. “Light verbs and theta-marking” Linquistic Inquiry 19: 205-232. Gu, Y. 1995. “Aspect licensing, verb movement and feature checking”. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 24: 49-83. Hale, K. 1980. “Remarks on Japanese phrase structure: comments on the papers on Japanese syntax”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2:185203. Hale, K. 1983. “Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5-47. Hale, K. and S. Keyser 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge. Halle, M. and J-R. Vergnaud 1987. An Essay on Stress. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hankamer, J. 1971. Constraints on Deletion in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven. Hankamer, G. and L. Knecht 1976. “The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish”. Proceedings of NELS 6 (Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 2), G. Hankamer and J. Aissen (eds.), 123-135. Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

250

REFERENCES

Hoji, H. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington. Hoji, H. 1998. “Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese”. Linguistic Inquiry 29 :127-152. Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Blackwell, Oxford. Horvath, J. 1981. Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA. Horvath, J. 1986. FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris. Horvath, J. 1995. “Structural focus, structural case and the notion of feature assignment”. Discourse Configurational Languages, K. É. Kiss (ed.), Oxford University Press, 28-64. Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574. Huang, C.-T. J 1987. “Comments on Hasegawa’s paper”. Proceedings of the Japanese Syntax Workshop: Issues on Empty Categories, Connecticut College, New London. Huang, C.-T. J. 1993. “Reconstruction and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences”. Linquistic Inquiry 24: 103-138. Huang, C.-T. J 1994. “Verb movement and some syntax semantics mismatches in Chinese”. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, P. J.-K. Li and C.-R. Huang (eds.) Tapei: Academia Sinica, 587-613. Huang, C.-T. J. 1997. “Chinese passives in comparative perspective”. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, 587-613. Hyams, N. 1983. The Acquisition of Parameterized Grammars. Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York. Ishihara, S. 2001. “Stress, focus and scrambling in Japanese”. MITWPL 39: 142-175. nce, A. 2004. Parasitic gaps in Turkish. Talk given at ECO5 Syntax Workshop, University of Maryland, College Park. sever, S. 2003. “Information structure in Turkish: the word order–prosody interface”. Lingua 113:1025-1053. Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-bar Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1996. “The proper treatement of measuring out, telicity and perhaps even quantification in English”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 305-354. Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Jónsson, J. G. 1994. “On case and agreement in Icelandic”. University of

REFERENCES

251

Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 85-101. Kelepir, M. 1996. The Implications of Antisymmetry in Theory of Syntax on Turkish Word Order. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Kelepir, M. 2001. Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Kennely, S. 1996. “Turkish subordination: [-CP, +Tense+Case]”. Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Turkish Linguistics, Anadolu University, Eski ehir, 5575. Kennelly, S. 1997. “Nonspecific external arguments in Turkish”. Dilbilim Ara rmalar . Kebikeç Yay nevi, 58-75. Kerslake, C. 1996. “The role of connectives in discourse construction in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, A. Kontrot (ed.), Anadolu University, Eski ehir. Ketrez, N. F. 2003. “Children’s accusative marked indefinites”. Proceedings of Workshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Kiss, K. É. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Kluwer Publications. Kiss, K. É. 1992. “Move-alpha and scrambling in Hungarian”. Approaches to Hungarian. I. Kenesei (ed.), Szeged: JATE, 13-85. Kiss, K. É. 1994. “Sentence structure and word order”. The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27, Kiefer and K. E. Kiss (eds.), New York: Acadamic Press, 1-90. Kiss, K. É. 1998. “Identificational focus versus informational focus”. Language 74: 245-273. Kiss, K. É. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge University Press. Kiss, K. É. 2003. “Argument scrambling in Hungarian”. Word Order and Scrambling, S. Karimi (ed.), Blackwell, 22-43. Kitahara, H. 1996. “Raising quantifiers without quantifier raising”. Minimal Ideas, W. Abraham et al. (eds.), John Benjamins, 189-198. Knecht, L. E. 1979. “The role of the genitive Suffix in Turkish relative clauses: A reply to Dede”. Papers from the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, 48-59. Knecht, L. E. 1986. Subject and Object in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Ko, H. 2004. Cyclic linearization and asymmetry in scrambling. Handout of the talk given at Linguistic Society of America 78th Annual Meeting, Boston. Kornfilt, J. 1984. Case Marking, Agreement and Empty Categories in Turkish.

252

REFERENCES

Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University. Kornfilt, J. 1988. “NP deletion and case marking in Turkish”. Studies on Turkish Linguistics, 187-215. Kornfilt, J. 1990. “Turkish and configurationality”. Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of ICTL V., B. Rona (ed.), Hitit Yay nevi, Ankara, 111-125. Kornfilt, J. 1991. “A case for emerging functional categories”. Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Syntax and Semantics 25: 11-35. Kornfilt, J. 1994. “Türkçe’de geçi im ve sözcük dizimine etkisi [Transitivity in Turkish and its effects on syntax]”. Dilbilim Ara rmalar , Hitit Yay nevi, Ankara, 55-65. Kornfilt, J. 1995. “Scrambling and incorporation in Turkish”. FAS Papers in Linguistics 1. A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, P. Law and S. Löhken (eds.), 29-42. Kornfilt, J. 1996. “On rightward movement in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, L. Johanson (ed.), Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 107-123. Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. Routledge, London and New York. Kornfilt, J. 1999. Partitive case in Turkish. Talk given at the 1st International Conference on Turkic Linguistics, Manchester University, April 1999. Manchester, UK. Kornfilt, J. 2002. “Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses”. The Verb in Turkish, E. E. Taylan (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183-212. Kornfilt 2003. “Scrambling, subscrambling and case in Turkish”. Word Order and Scrambling, S. Karimi (ed.), Blackwell, 125-155. Kratzer, A. 1994. “Severing the external argument from its Verb”. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds.), Kluwer: Dordrecht, 109-137. Kuno, M. 2003. Japanese scrambling as pure merge. Ms., Harvard University. Kural, M. 1991. “Scrambling and mixed positions in Turkish”. Proceeding of NELS 21, 259-272. Kural, M. 1992. Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Ms., UCLA. Kural, M. 1993. “V-to-I-to-C in Turkish”. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, F. Beghelli and M. Kural (eds.), 1-37.

REFERENCES

253

Kural, M. 1996. Verb Incorporation and Elementary Predicates. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA. Kural, M. 1997. “Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom”. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 498-519. Kuroda, S.Y. 1965. “Causative forms in Japanese”. Foundations of Language 1: 30-50. Kuroda, S.Y. 1978. “Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns and counter equi in Japanese”. Problems in Japanse Syntax and Semantics, J. Hinds (ed.), Kaitakusha, Tokyo, 222-239. Kuroda, S.Y. 1979. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Garland Press, New York. Kuroda, S.Y. 1988. “Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese”. Linguistic Investigations 12: 1-47. Larson, R. 1988. “On the double object construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-392. Lasnik, H. 1995. “Case and expletives revisited: on greed and other human failings”. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615-633. Lee, J. 2004. Ditransitive Structures and (Anti-)locality. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University. Lees, R. B. 1965. “Turkish nominalization and a problem of ellipsis”. Foundation of Language 1.2: 112-121. Legate, J. 2003. “Some interface properties of the phase”. Linguisitc Inquiry 34: 505-516. Leko, N. 1999. “Functional categories and the DP in Bosnian”. Topics in South Slavic Syntax and Semantics, M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova and L. Hellan, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229-252. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Semantics Interface. MIT Press. Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: California University Press. Li, Y. A. 1985. Abstract Case in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of South California. Li, Y. A. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Li, Y. A. 1999. Form-function correspondence: structures and interpretations of nominal expressions in Mandarin Chinese. Ms., University of South California. Li, Y. 1990. “X0-binding and verb incorporation”. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 399426.

254

REFERENCES

Lidz, J. 1999. “The morphosemantics of object case in Kannada”. Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 325-336. Lin, J. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Longobardi, G. 1994. “Reference and proper names: a theory of Nmovement in syntax and logical form”. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609-665. Longobardi, G. 2001a. “The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters and problems”. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Baltin, Mark, and Chris Collins, (eds.) Blackwell Publishers, 562-601. Longobardi, G. 2001b. “How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names”. Natural Language Semantics 9: 335-369. Mahajan, A. K. 1990. The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Mahajan, A. 2000. “Oblique subjects and Burzio’s generalization”. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, Eric Reuland (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79-102. Marácz, L. 1989. Asymmetries in Hungarian. Doctoral Dissertation, Rijksuniversität Groningen. Marácz, L. 1990. “V-movement in Hungarian: a case of minimality”. Approaches to Hungarian. I. Kenesei (ed.), Szeged: JATE, 1-27. Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge. Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and licensing”. Proceedings of ESCOL 8, G.F. Westphal, B. Ao and H-R Chae (eds.), University of Maryland, Baltimore, 234-253. Markman, V. 2003. Causatives without causers and Burzio’s generalization, CASTL Conference Handout, University of Tromsø, Norway. Massam, D. 2001. “Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 153-197. Mithun, M. 1984. “The evolution of noun incorporation”. Language 60: 847893. Miyagawa, S. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. Syntax and Semantics 22, Academic Press: San Diego, California. Miyagawa, S. 1991. Case realization and scrambling. Ms., Ohio State University. Miyagawa, S. 1995. “Scrambling as an obligatory movement”. Proceedings of the Nanzan Conference on Japanese Language Education and Linguistics, Yasuaki Abe, Tadashi Sakamoto, and Matsuo Soga (eds.), Nagoya University: Nanzan University, 81-92.

REFERENCES

255

Miyagawa, S. 1997. “Against optional scrambling”. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 125. Miyagawa, S. 2001. “EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ”. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), MIT Press, 293-338. Miyagawa, S. 2003. “A-movement scrambling and options without optionality”. Word Order and Scrambling, S. Karimi (ed.), Blackwell Publishers, 177-200. Miyagawa, S. 2004. On EPP. Ms., MIT. Miyagawa, S. and T. Tsujioka. 2004. “Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1-38. Miyamoto, E. T., K. Wexler, T. Aikawa and S. Miyagawa. 1999. “Casedropping and unaccusatives in Japanese acquisition”. Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cascadilla Press, 443-452. Moore, J. 1998. “Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 149-189. Nakamura, W. 1999. “Functional optimality theory”. Functionalism and Formalism, M. Darnell, et al (eds.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 253276. Nakanishi, K. 2003. “The semantics of measure phrases”. Proceedings of NELS 33, 225-244. Nakipo lu-Demiralp, M. 2002. “The referential properties of the implicit arguments of impersonal passive constructions”. The Verb in Turkish, E. E. Taylan (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 128-150. Nilsson, B. 1985. Case Marking Semantics in Turkish. University of Stockholm Publications. Nilsson, B. 1986. “Object incorporation in Turkish”. Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference, A. Aksu-Koç and Erguvanl -Taylan (eds.), 113-128. Orgun, O. and S. Inkelas 2004. “Turkish direct objects: incorporation or word order”. Proceedings of the 40th Chicago Linguistic Society Meeting, University of Chicago. Osawa, F. 1998. “The emergence of the D system and the demise of morphological case in English”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 467-489. Osawa, F. 2000. “The historical emergence of DP in English”. English Linguistics 17: 51-79. Otani, K. and J. Whitman 1991. “V-raising and VP-Elipsis”. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 345-358.

256

REFERENCES

Özkaragöz, I. 1980. “Evidence from Turkish for the unaccusative hypothesis”. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. Özkaragöz, I. 1986. “Monoclausal double passives in Turkish”. Studies in Turkish Linguistics, D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds.), John Benjamins, 77-92. Özsoy, S. 1988. “Null subject parameter and Turkish”. Studies on modern Turkish, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics, H. Boeschoten and L. Th. Verhoeven (eds.), Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, 82-91. Özsoy, A. S. 1996. “The minimalist program and the antecedent contained deletion in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, K. mer and N. E. Uzun (eds.), Ankara University Press, 9-15. Özsoy, A. S. 2002. “On ‘small’ clauses, other ‘bare’ verbal complements and feature checking in Turkish”. The Verb in Turkish, E. E. Taylan (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 213-237. Öztürk, B. 1997. Ve coordination in Turkish. Ms., Bo aziçi University. Öztürk, B. 1999. Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Öztürk, B. 2000a. “Adjunct clauses in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Bo aziçi University, Istanbul. Öztürk, B. 2000b. Nominalization in Turkish. Ms., Harvard University. Öztürk, B. 2002a. “Turkish as a non-pro-drop language”. The Verb in Turkish, E. E. Taylan (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239-259. Öztürk, B. 2002b. “Determiner phrases in Turkish”. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern Cyprus, 78-89. Öztürk, B. 2003a. “Pseudo-incorporation in Turkish”. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8, C. Boeckx, C. Bowern and J. Jasanoff (eds.), 139-158. Öztürk, B. 2003b. Agent incorporation. Paper presented at Michigan Linguistic Society Meeting, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Öztürk, B. 2003c. “Complex predicates in Turkish”. Proceedings of Light Verb Workshop, G. Aygen, C. Bowern and C. Quinn (eds.) Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 171-192. Öztürk, B. 2004. “Case, referentiality and non-configurationality”, Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 10, C. Bowern (eds.), 171-192. Öztürk, B. (to appear) “Pseudo-incorporation of agents”. Proceedings of Penn

REFERENCES

257

Linguistic Colloquium 28, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Parsons, T. 1993. Thematic Relations and Arguments. Ms., University of California, Irvine. Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax. MIT Press. Pinker, S. 1984. Language, Learnability and Language Learning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Postal, P. 1966. “On so-called pronouns in English”. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics 19, F. Dinneen (ed.), Georgetown University Press, 177-206. Progova , L. 1998. “Determiner phrase in a language without determiners”. Journal of Linguistics 34: 165-179. Puskás, G. 2000. Word Order in Hungarian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Rappaport, T. 1987. Copular, Nominal and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Rappaport, G. 1998. The slavic noun phrase. Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer Creek, Indiana. Ritter, E. 1991. “Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew”. Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, S. Rothstein (ed.) New York: Academic Press, 37-62. Rizzi, L. 1986. “Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro”. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501-557. Rizzi, L. 1997. “On the fine structure of the left-periphery”. Elements of Grammar. Haegeman L. (ed.) 281-337. Romero, J. 1999. “The case of agreement”. Papers on Morphology and Syntax, K. Arregi, B. Bruening, C. Krause and V. Lin (eds.), Cycle I, MITWPL 33: 343-367. Rouveret, A. and J.-R. Vergnaud 1980. “Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations”. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97-202. Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Saito, M. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Saito, M. 1992. “Long distance scrambling in Japanese”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69-118. Saito, M. 2001. “Movement and theta-roles: a case study with resultatives”. Proceedings of the Second Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Saito, M. 2002. On the role of selection in the application of merge. Talk given at NELS 2002, MIT. Saito, M. and H. Hoji 1983. “Weak cross-over and move alpha in Japanese”.

258

REFERENCES

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 245-249. Saito, M. and H. Hoshi 2000. “The Japanese light verb construction and the minimalist program”. Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, et al (ed.), 262-295. Saito, M. and N. Fukui 1998. “Order in phrase structure and movement”. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439-474. Schroeder, C. 1992. “On the discourse function of the so-called numeral Classifier TANE and on the count-mass distinction in Turkish”. Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics, Ahmet Konrot (ed.), Anadolu University, 259-283. Schroeder, C. 1999. Turkologica: The Turkish Nominal Phrase in Spoken Discourse. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, Volume 40. Schütze, C. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Schwarzchild, R. 2002. “Singleton indefinites”. Journal of Semantics, 19: 289-314. Seiter, W. 1980. Studies in Niuean Syntax. Garland Press, New York. Sezer, E. 1972. Some observations on the genitive phrases in Turkish Nominalizations. Ms., Harvard University. Sezer, E. 1991. Topics in Turkish Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University. Sezer, E. 2002. “Finite inflection in Turkish”. The Verb in Turkish, E. E. Taylan (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-46. Shibatani, M. and T. Kageyama 1988. “Word formation in a modular theory of grammar”. Language 64: 451-484. Simpson, J. H. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri Morphology and Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Stowell, T. 1991. “Determiners in NP and DP”. Views on Phrase Structure, K. Leffel and Denis Bouchard (eds.), Kluwer Publications, 37-55. Szabolcsi, A. 1983/84. “The possessor that ran away from home”. The Linguistic Review 3: 89-102. Tada, Hiroaki. 1992. “Nominative objects in Japanese”. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14: 91-108. Takano, Y. 1998. “Structure within VP in Japanese”. Proceedings of Japanese-Korean Linguistics 8, D. Silva (ed.), CSLI, Stanford, 501514. Tang, S.-W. 1998. Parameterization of Features in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Taraldsen, T. K. 1978. On the NIC, vacuous application and That-t filter. Ms., MIT.

REFERENCES

259

Taylan, E.E. 1979. “An odd case in the causative construction in Turkish”. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 15, Chicago University Press, 92-99. Taylan, E. E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Taylan, E. E. 1986. “Pronominal vs. zero representation anaphora in Turkish”. Studies in Turkish Linguistics, D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds.), John Benjamins, 209-232. Taylan, E. E. 1997. “Türkçe’de görünü , zaman ve Kiplik ili kisi [Aspect, tense and mood in Turkish]”. Proceedings of the XI. National Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: ODTÜ, 1-13. Taylan, E. E. 2001. “Temporal-aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish”. The Verb in Turkish, E. E. Taylan (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 97-128. Taylan, E.E. and K. Zimmer 1994. “Case marking in Turkish indefinite object constructions”. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 20, 547-552. Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tsai, W. D. 1994. On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Tura-Sansa, S. 1973. The Articles in English and their Counterparts in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Underhill, R. 1976. Turkish grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. van Geenhoven, V. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California. van Gelderen, E. 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Linguistics Today, vol. 9, John Benjamins. Watanabe, A. 2002. Functional projection of nominals in Japanese: syntax of classifiers. Ms., University of Tokyo. Webelhuth, G. 1989. Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Germanic Languages. Doctoral Disseration, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Woolford, E. 2001. “Case patterns”. Optimality Theoretic Syntax, G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw and S. Vikner (eds.), Cambridge: MIT Press, 509-543. Woolford, E. 2003. “Burzio’s generalization and markedness”. New Perspectives on Case Theory, E. Brandner and H. Zinsmeister (eds.), CSLI Publications, Standford, California, 301-330. Xu, L. 1986. “Free empty categories”. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 75-93. Yamashita, H. 2001. “EPP and the ordering effects on interpretation a

260

REFERENCES

preliminary study”. Nanzan Studies in Japanese Language Education 8, Nagoya Nanzan University, 300-338. Yatsushiro, K. 1999. Case Licensing and VP structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Yava , F. 1980. On the Meaning of Tense and Aspect Markers in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas University. Yava , F. 1982 . “Future reference in Turkish”. Linguistics 20: 411-429. Yip, M., J. Maling and R. Jackendoff. 1987. “Case in tiers”. Language 63: 217-250. Zidani-Ero lu, L. 1997a. “Exceptionally case-marked NPs as matrix objects”. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 219-230. Zidani-Ero lu, L. 1997b. Indefinite Noun Phrases in Turkish. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Zimmer, K. 1976. “Some constraints on Turkish causativization”. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: Syntax and Semantics, M. Shibatani (ed.), New York: Academic Press, 399-412.

Name Index

Abels, K. 132 Abney, S. P. 2 Aissen, J. 47, 85 n.13, n.14, 86 n.20, 89 n.38, 109, 146, 148, 157, 232 n.17 Aikawa, T. 226-227 Akar, D. 235 n.32 Akmajian, A. 44 Aksu-Koç, A. 231 n.10 Alexiadou, A. 115, 130, 132, 139, 141, 200, 220, 230 n.8 Anagnostopoulou, E. 115, 130, 132, 139, 141, 150, 151, 200, 220, 230 n.8 Arslan, C. Z. 231 n.10, 235 n.31 Aydemir, Y. 32, 34, 72, 74, 76, 77, 83 n.7 Aygen, G. 26-28, 60, 65, 77, 80, 81, 83 n.2, n.5, n.7, 88 n.32, 90 n.46, 139, n.140, 148,150, 166, 178, 180, 229 n.5, 230 n.7, n.9, 231 n.10, 232 n,13, n.14, 235 n.28 n.30, 236 n.32, n.33

Campos, H. 220 Carlson, G. 27, 61, 66, 67 Castaneda, H. N. 96 Chao, Y. R. 206 Cheng, L.L. 202, 206 Chierchia, G. 7, 11, 21, 24, 25, 59, 64, 65, 89 n.37, 93, 202, 208 Chomsky, N. 1, 4, 93, 127, 135, 136, 169, 174, 207, 210, 241 Chung, S. 53, 116, 117, 118 Cinque, G. 2, 84 n.11, 174, 195 Comrie, B. 232 n.17 Crisma, P. 19, 68

Babyonyshev, M. 226-227 Baker, M. 4, 5, 32-33, 37, 42, 44, 50, 53, 86 n.16, 94-95, 122, 142, 151, 164, 165, 194 Banguo lu, T. 19, 68 Beghelli, F. 80 Besler, D. 84 n.11 Biktimir, T. 47, 86 n.20 Boeckx, C. 130-132, 232 n.15, 236 n.37, 239 n.50, n.51 Borer, H. 45, 95, 97, 98, 100, 107, 210, 226, 227, 229 n.1, 242 Bo kovi , . 84 n.3, 237 n.39 Brisson, C. 91 n.47 Bruening, B. 148 Burzio, L. 128, 129, 132, 159

Emre, A. C. 168 Enç, M. 1, 26-27, 60, 65, 77, 78, 88 n.32, 90 n.47, 231 n.10, 239 n.47 Erdal, M. 84 n.9, n.11 Ergin, M. 84 n.9 Erkü, F. 168

Davidson, D. 96 Dayal, V. 75, 87 n.26, 89 n.37, 90 n.45 Dede, M. 85 n.13, 232 n.17 de Hoop, H. 88 n.34, 115-116 de Swart, H. 53, 75, 76, 193 Diesing, M. 22, 78, 89 n.43 Di Sciullo, A.M. 77 Dowty, D. 99

Farkas, D. F. 53, 75, 76, 193 Fodor, J. 78, 80, 81 Fox, D. 136 Fukui, N. 18, 20, 165, 195, 197, 236 n.35 Ganger, J. 226-227 Gencan, T. N. 19, 68 George, L. 139, 148, 281 n.10 Givón, T. 44

262

NAME INDEX

Ghomeshi, J. 27, 44 Göksel, A. 47, 83 n.6, 84 n.9, n.12, 85 n.13, n.14, 86 n.20, 109, 138, 146, 157, 173-176, 180, 181, 182, 230 n.9, 232 n.17, n.18, n.19, 234 n.23, 235 n.31 Grimshaw, J. 123, 125, 227 Gu, Y. 206 Hale, K. 13, 164, 165, 188, 189, 210, 229 n.1 Halle, M. 174 Hankamer, J. 28, 89 Harley, H. 128, 143, 144, 159, 234 n.25 Heim, I. 6 Hoji, H. 152, 163, 165, 188, 210, 215-217, 234 n.25, 239 n.49 Hornstein, N. 180 Horvath, J. 191 Hoshi, H. 123, 124, 125 Huang, C.-T. J. 132, 134, 203-204, 205, 206, 208, 210-212, 215, 224 Hyams, N. 228 Inkelas, S. 86 n.17 Ishihara, S. 165, 234 n.27 nce, A. 214, 218-219 sever, S. 168 Jackendoff, R. 77, 159 Jaeggli, O. 210 Jónsson, J. G. 159 Kageyama, T. 237 n.42 Kelepir, M. 26, 60, 77-79, 80, 81, 83 n.6 90 n.46, n.47, 139, 166, 180, 230 n.7, n.9, 231 n.10 Kennelly, S. 87 n.21, 139, 150, 231 n.10, 232 n.13 Kerslake, C. 84 n.9, n.12 Ketrez, N. F. 26, 60 Keyser, K. 229 n.1 Kiss, K. É. 169, 179-180, 191-194, 237 n.38 Kitahara, H. 180 Knecht, L. E. 28, 32, 33, 34, 36,

37, 47, 83 n.7, 85 n.13, 87 n.20, 232 n.19 Ko, H. 234 n.26 Kornfilt, J. 19, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 37, 45, 47, 60, 62, 65, 68, 83 n.5, n.6, n.7, 84 n.12, 85, n.12, n.15, 86 n.15, n.16, 87 n.20, n.28, n.32, 89 n.38, 134-35, 139, 148, 152, 166, 178, 213, 230 n.6, n.9, 231 n.10 Kratzer, A. 6, 46, 96, 99, 102, 157 Kuno, M. 179, 194 Kural, M. 83 n.6, 85 n.13, 138, 139, 148, 153, 166-173, 176, 178, 181, 184, 230 n.9, 231 n.10, 232 n.13, n.17, 235 n.30, n.31 Kuroda, S.Y. 143, 165, 236 n.35 Ladusaw, W. A. 53, 116, 117, 118 Larson, R. 151, 156 Lasnik, H. 220 Lee, J. 234 n.24 Lees, R. B. 150, 232 n.13 Legate, J. 135-138 Leko, N. 237 n.39 Levin, B. 94, 95 Lewis, G. L. 19, 68, 85 n.13, n.14, 232 n.17 Li, C. N. 206 Li, Y. A. 202, 203, 206 Li, Y. 62 Lidz, J. 26, 79 Lin, J. 95-97, 100, 202-203, 205208, 224, 229 n.1, 242 Longobardi, G. 1, 2, 7, 10, 15 n.2, 19, 21, 23-24, 68, 83 n.5, 84 n.8, 95 n.3, 241 Mahajan, A. K 159, 167, 176 Maling, J. 159 Marácz, L. 191 Marantz, A. 46, 53, 96, 99, 143, 157, 159 Markman, V. 128 Massam, D. 16, 32, 43-46, 86 n.18, 229 n.3 Mester, A. 123, 125, 227 Mithun, M. 32, 33, 34, 83 n.7

NAME INDEX

Miyagawa, S. 13, 41, 42, 152-153, 165, 177, 180, 188, 195-199, 201, 202, 226, 227, 231 n.11, 234 n.24, n.26, 235 n.29, n.32, 237 n.40 Miyamoto, E. T. 226, 227 Moore, J. 148 Nakamura, W. 159 Nakanishi, K. 70-71, 77, 89 n.39 Nakipo lu-Demiralp, M. 87 n.20, 229 n.2 Nilsson, B. 26, 28, 32, 33, 34, 60, 77, 83 n.7 Orgun, O. 86 n.17 Osawa, F. 2, 25, 88 n.35 Otani, K. 215 Özkaragöz, I. 47, 87 n.20 Özsoy, S. 84 n.9, n.12, 136, 138, 139, 148, 173-175, 181-182, 213, 231 n.10, 235 n.31 Öztürk, B. 29, 56, 57, 70, 83 n.5, 115, 139, 189, 213, 230 n.8, 231 n.10, 232 n.13 Parsons, T. 96 Pesetsky, D. 94, 95, 226-227 Pinker, S. 226 Postal, P. 239 n.50 Progova , L. 237 n.39 Puskás, G. 210 Pylkkänen, L. 128 Rappaport, G. 237 n.39 Rappaport, M. 94, 95 Rappaport, T. 44 Ritter, E. 2, 45 Rizzi, L. 182, 210, 219, 220 Romero, J. 239 n.48 Rouveret, A. 3 Ross, J. 165 Sag, I. 78, 80, 81 Schroeder, C. 28, 32, 33, 34, 83 n.7 Schütze, C. 159

263

Schwarzchild, R. 80, 82 Seiter, W. 43 Sezer, E. 26, 28, 32, 33, 34, 60, 69, 178, 231 n.10, 232 n.13 Shibatani, M. 237 n.42 Simpson, J. H. 164 Slabakova, R. 77 Stowell, T. 2, 7, 80 Sybesma, R. 202, 206 Szabolcsi, A. 2 Tada, Hiroaki. 177 Takahashi, D. 237 n.39 Takano, Y. 152, 165, 195, 197 Tang, S.-W. 206 Taraldsen, T. K. 210 Taylan, E.E. 26, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 51, 60, 73, 77, 83 n.6, 84 n.9, 85 n.13, n.14, 87 n.23, 109, 146, 157, 166, 168, 178,230 n.9, 231 .10, 232 n.17, 239 n.47 Tenny, C. 44, 76 Thompson, S. A. 206, 238 n.44 Tsai, W. D. 89 n.36 Tsujioka, T. 152-153, 234 n.24 Tura-Sansa, S. 26, 60, 69, 89 n.42 Underhill, R. 19, 68 van Geenhoven, V. 26, 40, 53, 89 n.41 van Gelderen, E. 239 n.53 Vergnaud, J-R. 3 Watanabe, A. 195 Webelhuth, G. 167 Wexler, K. 226-227 Whitman, J. 215 Woolford, E. 159 Xu, L. 211 Yamashita, H. 200 Yatsushiro, K. 152 Yava , F. 231 n.10 Yip, M. 159 Zidani-Ero lu, L. 77, 89 n.43, 90

264 n.46 Zimmer, K. 26, 34, 60, 85 n.13, n.14, 232 n.17

NAME INDEX

Language Index

Arabic 19 Chamorro 116-118, 229 n.4 Chinese 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 29, 89 n.36, 95, 96-97, 166, 190, 202, 203-210, 211-212, 215, 217, 219, 221, 224, 225, 237 n.41, 238 n.44, n.46, 239 n.49, 243 English 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 44, 61, 63, 66, 67, 83 n.3, 89 n.36, 91 n.47, 95, 99, 102, 126-128, 134-137, 139, 147-148, 151, 157-160, 162-164, 166, 174, 179, 184-187, 189, 190, 192, 197, 202-204, 209-210, 215, 220, 222228, 236 n.34, n.36, 237 n.41, 239 n.53, 241-243 French 9, 59, 130, 222 Greek 151, 162 Hebrew 19, 224 Hungarian 2, 13-14, 17, 75, 95, 166, 169, 170, 179, 190, 191-194, 197-202, 208-210, 221-226, 223 n.21, 237 n.37, n.38, n.39, n.41, 239 n.50, 242-243 Icelandic 151, 162 Irish 19 Italian 10, 23-24, 64, 93, 97, 210212, 219-221, 239 n.48, n.49 Japanese 2, 14, 17, 18, 29, 70, 77, 87 n.29, 95, 123, 124, 141-143, 152, 154, 155, 164-166, 176-180, 190, 194-201, 208-210, 212, 215-218, 220-227, 234 n.24, n.25, n.27, 235 n.29,

n.32, 236 n.35, 237 n.39, n.40, n.41, n.42 , 242-243 Kannada 26 Korean 29, 212, 234 n.26 Mapudungun 5 Mohawk 33, 164 Niuean 43-45, 86 n.18, 229 n.3 Norwegian 150 Old English 25, 239 n.53 Onondaga 33 Pashto 210-211 Russian 7, 10-11, 21, 22, 23, 25, 227 Southern Tiwa 33 Spanish 210, 211, 212, 220, 221, 228, 239 n.48, n.49 Swedish 150 Tsou 89 n.40, 179 Turkish passim Urdu 26 Warlpiri 164 West Greenlandic (Eskimo) 26, 40, 89 n.41, 122

Subject Index

A-chain 226-228 adjunction 24, 83 n.6, 133-34, 230 n.9 Agree 3-4, 127-128, 131, 143, 147, 184-187, 189-190, 192-194, 195, 197, 198, 202, 209-210, 221-223, 225, 226, 228, 232 n.15, 236 n.32, n.35, 238 n. n51 Antecedent Contained Deletion (ACD) 136 argument drop 211, 220, 221, 224 external 44, 46, 49, 50, 53, 96-100, 122, 128-129, 132-134, 179, 237 n.38 structure 94-97, 101, 105 transfer 123 bare plurals 66-67 Burzio’s Generalization 128-129, 132 case

passim abstract 128, 207 default 115, 116 dependent 159 feature assignment 141 mandatory 143 morphological realization of 142-143, 147-148, 150, 188 case-filter 3-5, 207 causative 41, 110, 112, 115, 144, 157 classifier 8-9, 15 n.3, 18, 22, 25, 28-30, 59, 70 complex predicate 31, 39, 50-53, 55-59 Continuity Hypothesis 226 dative 143, 156-161 inherent 144, 160, 188 structural 147

definite 18, 19, 22, 61, 64, 65 demonstrative 18, 19, 21 determiner 18-21, 61-63, 69, 88 n.35 covert 23, 25, 59 empty 24, 64-65 morphological 18-21, 65 overt 23, 25, 59 domain functional 94, 100 lexical 94, 101 singleton 81 theta 222-224 double-objects 150 Determiner Phrase Hypothesis (DP) 7, 25 Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) 148, 150 EPP 115, 139-143, 165, 177, 178, 180, 188, 196, 197, 200-202, 220 event structure 96, 186, 188, 209, 220-222, 224-225, 229 n.1 focus contrastive 153-155, 176, 182 field 173 identificational 180, 235 n.32 informational 180 generics 64-65 genitive 28, 141-142, 227, 232 n.20 Head Movement Constraint (HMC) 122 idioms 53-55, 99-100, 237 n.38 incorporation passim head- 32, 33, 38, 40-43, 62, 122124 LF 124 pseudo- 31, 32, 43, 45-50, 53, 72, 75 indefinites 63-82

SUBJECT INDEX

narrow scope 81 non-specific 65-68, 72-77 singleton 80-81 specific 27, 65, 77-82

267

null arguments 210-211, 217, 221 null objects 214-217, 219-220 null topic 212, 215, 218, 221 object drop 136, 212, 220

kinds 7-8, 10, 22, 29, 61, 64-65, 78, 81, 90 n.47 left periphery 191 Li’s Generalization 62 light verbs 6, 31, 55-57, 61, 96, 123-126, 207-208 locality 151, 156-160 Maturational Hypothesis 226-227 Mechanical Case Parameter 143144 movement passim A- 139, 143, 153-154, 167-169, 171, 176-178, 180, 183-184, 195-197, 204 A-bar 154, 156, 167-169, 171172, 176-177, 182-184, 195, 203, 236 n.34 DP/NP- 3, 196, 203 head 101, 105, 113, 115, 121122, 124-125, 139, 193, 198, 204, 223-224 T-to-C- 235 n.30 verb 101, 141. 166, 190, 238 n.46 V-to-v- 131 v-to-T- 130, 188, 198, 206 wh- 89 n.36, 117, 136, 236 n.35 Neo-Davidsonian Model 95-96 Nominal Mapping Parameter 8, 21-22, 59 non-configurationality 162, 164-166, 187189, 221-226 Japanese-type 164-165 Mohawk-type 164 Warlpiri- type 164 non-derived adverbs 51-53, 73-74 nouns bare 7-10, 18, 21-22, 24-25, 3140, 44-46, 50-56, 59, 6163, 72-77, 107 count 9-10 mass 9-10, 15, 22

passive asymmetric 151 impersonal 47, 87 n.30, 106-109, 140 phase 135-136 Phase-Impenetrability Condition 136 pivot 179 Polysynthesis Parameter 4-5 pronoun 84 n.8 possessive 83 n.3 pro-drop 210-211, 220, 221, 224, 228 pro-licensing 211 quantifier 78-81, 90 n.47, 180 existential 83 n.2, 89 n.44 numeral 83 n.2, 180, 234 n.26 raising 136, 180 strong 90 n.47 universal 180, 183 reconstruction 136, 153-156, 169, 171172, 176, 178, 181-183 referentiality passim scope 66-68, 72, 79-82, 90 n.47, 131, 133, 139-141, 148, 152-153, 160-162, 170-172, 177-178, 180, 181, 183184, 196 scrambling passim A- 167, 171, 172, 180, 181, 194196 A-bar 167, 168, 172, 176, 181, 182, 194-196 SHIFT 64-65 sloppy identity 211, 214-216 Spec-Head agreement 140, 178 Split Measure Phrase 70 stress 36, 84 n.11, 86 n.17, 165, 174-175 focal 174-176, 178, 182, 184, 235 n.31

268

SUBJECT INDEX

nuclear 174, 235 n.27 sentential 138, 174, 175, 176, 182 subject drop 212, 213, 220 subject-object asymmetry 164-165, 167, 188, 190-191 superiority 163, 189, 190, 193-194, 221225 thematic hierarchy 191 theme-doubling 111, 116 topicalization 180, 191 unaccusative 49, 50 unergative 47 variable behavior verbs 98, 104, 105, 107 visibility condition 3-6, 15 n.1, 102, 190 vP fronting 132

In the series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 19 JOSEFSSON, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 20 LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 21 KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 22 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 23 GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 24 REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 25 FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 26 ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 27 RŮŽIČKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 28 HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 29 MIYAMOTO, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 30 BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 31 SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 32 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, Andre MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 33 PUSKÁS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 34 REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 35 HRÓARSDÓTTIR, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 36 GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 37 LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MÜLLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 38 MEINUNGER, Andre: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 39 GELDEREN, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 40 HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Víctor SÁNCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton van der WOUDEN (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 42 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 44 TAYLAN, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 45 ABRAHAM, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 46 PANAGIOTIDIS, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA and Wim van der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 48 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Sjef BARBIERS and Hans-Martin GÄRTNER (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 49 ALEXIADOU, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp.

50 STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 51 GERLACH, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 52 SIMON, Horst J. and Heike WIESE (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 53 ZWART, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 54 BAPTISTA, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 55 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 56 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 59 DEHÉ, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 60 TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILLIE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 67 MIŠESKA TOMIĆ, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 69 KISS, Katalin É. and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 71 GELDEREN, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 74 HEGGIE, Lorie and Francisco ORDÓÑEZ (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. xviii, 386 pp. + index. Expected April 2005 76 STAVROU, Melita and Arhonto TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. viii, 360 pp. + index. Expected May 2005 77 ÖZTÜRK, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. viii, 268 pp. 78 DIKKEN, Marcel den and Christina M. TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. ca. 336 pp. Expected September 2005

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers website, www.benjamins.com

Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure

Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 77)

Japanese Phrase Structure Grammar

Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies

Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar

Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einführung

Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies (Current Studies in Linguistics)

Spanish Phrase Book (BBC Phrase Book)

Derivation by Phrase

German Phrase Book

Japanese Phrase book

Structure and Sentiment A Test Case in Social Anthropology

The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation, and change

Bond and Structure Models (Structure and Bonding)

Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book

Hungarian Phrase Book & Dictionary (Berlitz Phrase Books)

Apache: Phrase Book: Essential Code and Commands

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book

The ritual process: structure and anti-structure

The ritual process: structure and anti-structure

Romance Writer's Phrase Book (Perigee)

Inventiones: Fiction and Referentiality in Twelfth-Century English Historical Writing

Structure

Crystallography and Surface Structure

Atomic structure and periodicity

Logic and Structure

Logic and Structure

Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure