University of Maryland DRUM  
University of Maryland Digital Repository at the University of Maryland

DRUM >
Theses and Dissertations from UM >
UM Theses and Dissertations >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/3238

Title: Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses
Authors: Cagri, Ilhan Merih
Advisors: Hornstein, Norbert
Pietroski, Paul
Department/Program: Linguistics
Type: Dissertation
Sponsors: Digital Repository at the University of Maryland
University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)
Keywords: Language, Linguistics (0290)
syntax; Minimality; Minimalism; Turkish; relative clauses; Case, the EPP and scrambling
Issue Date: 8-Dec-2005
Abstract: Turkish relative clauses display a subject/non-subject asymmetry. The subject relative (SR) is licensed for relativization from [Spec, TP]. Whereas the non-subject relative (NSR) is never acceptable for subject relativization, the SR is licensed in clauses where there is no external argument, and when relativizing a non-subject in clauses where the subject is non-specific. Within the framework of the Minimalist Program, Turkish RCs are explained in terms of satisfaction of the EPP of T by a D feature and Minimality effects. As long as no nominal expression intervenes between the relative head and [Spec, TP], the SR is licensed. The SR, then, can be used as a diagnostic for movement through TP. Minimality effects are incurred when there is an intervening nominal between T° and the RC head, and the SR becomes unacceptable. The proposal is that in Turkish, specific nominals, +human nominals, and Experiencers of psych verbs all contain a DP projection. Non-specifics are NPs which cannot satisfy the EPP. NP subjects cannot move to [Spec, TP], and thus permit the SR form for relativization of non-subjects. NPs create intervention effects, as does PRO, with the exception of subject control PRO which is perhaps a trace of movement. Scrambling ameliorates intervention effects. Once scrambled, expressions are frozen but remain porous for movement of a subconstituent. Differences between inherent and structural Case are suggested with structural case assignment limited to DPs and in a Spec-Head configuration. Structurally case-marked DPs are barred from moving to case-assigning positions unless there is a morphological match. Further proposals include structures for verb classes, including Psych verbs, and structures for infinitivals and +human DPs. Contrastive focus is briefly addressed. Though superficially complex, relativization in Turkish can be accounted for with a minimum of technology. The suggestions here have implications for the theory of the EPP, Case, its assignment and interface conditions, feature satisfaction, and movement.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/3238
Appears in Collections:UM Theses and Dissertations
Linguistics Theses and Dissertations

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormatNo. of Downloads
umi-umd-3065.pdf1.36 MBAdobe PDF706View/Open

All items in DRUM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

 

DRUM is brought to you by the University of Maryland Libraries
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7011 (301)314-1328.
Please send us your comments. -
All Contents