Content uploaded by Ceyhan Temürcü
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ceyhan Temürcü on Dec 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The interaction of syntax and discourse in word order: data from Turkish
Abstract
Some recent studies have pointed out that certain grammatical phenomena are not eligible to be analyzed within a strictly formal-syntactic framework, and that surface forms can best be analyzed as resulting from the interaction of syntax and pragmatics. This paper will advocate a similar view by arguing that it is necessary to postulate two distinct but interacting levels of representation in order to accommodate word order variation in Turkish: a "phrase structure" (PS) at the formal-syntactic level and an "information structure" (IS) at the pragmatic level. It will evaluate data primarily concerning quantifier scope and binding to show that 'fronting' of the object has a pragmatic as well as a semantic import, whereas 'postposing' of the sentence-initial arguments is pragmatically contentful but semantically vacuous. It will argue that although object fronting lands itself to a syntactic movement analysis, attempts to associate semantically vacuous alternations like postposing with formal-syntactic operations either call for unmotivated modifications to the generativist assumptions, or necessitate extensions to the framework, which leads to the weakening of the theory.
... Movement of arguments to the clause-initial position in Turkish has been considered both A-and A'-movement. Merchant (1995), Aygen (2003), and Temürcü (2005) suggest that clause-initial scrambling is into an A-position, while Kural (1992) claims that it can best be analyzed as A'-movement. Öztürk (2004), on the other hand, follows Miyagawa (2003) and argues that clause-initial scrambling in Turkish can be into either an A-position or an A'-position. ...
... In fact, there is evidence for both A-movement and A'-movement of (clause-initial) local scrambling in Turkish. For instance, according to Temürcü (2005), who argues for an A-scrambling analysis, the universally quantified expression herkes 'everyone' in (12a) is normally interpreted as taking scope over the numerically quantified expression üç kişi 'three people'. The reverse scope reading is also possible, which is presumably obtained by 'quantifier raising' (May 1977 'Three people accused everyone.' 3 > all (Collective reading: 'There are three people such that they accused everyone.') ...
... (Kural, 1992:30) (15a) further shows that when the base position of an anaphor inside a larger DP is not c-commanded by its antecedent, it cannot be bound by it. Here, according to Temürcü (2005), the anaphor kendi 'self' inside the subject is locally bound by the silent pronominal, i.e. pro, confronting the Principle A of BT; but since the pro fails to be bound by its antecedent adam 'man', due to lack of c-commanding, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. As seen in (15b), the object antecedent can be a syntactic binder for the pro, and in turn for the anaphor as well, when it scrambles to a c-commanding position where binding is possible, i.e. an A-position, to save the sentence (the Possessive Phrase (PossP) analysis is from Temürcü, 2005 '(Lit.) ...
One of the remarkable proposals on the 'optionality' problem of scrambling in recent literature is the 'options without optionality' approach by Miyagawa (1997, 2003), which suggests the EPP-feature on T 0 as the driving force for local scrambling. Miyagawa proposes that, in an OSV sentence in a SOV language like Japanese, either the subject or the object must satisfy the EPP-feature on T 0 by undergoing A-scrambling to [Spec,TP]. However, considering the fact that scopal interactions of quantifiers as well as the binding facts of Turkish exhibit explicit reconstruction effects, this study reveals that Turkish local scrambling has the characteristics of A'-movement, which is inconsistent with the EPP-driven approach. It is argued that, since [Spec,TP] does not need to be filled in Turkish (Öztürk, 2004), the EPP-feature has nothing to do with the local scrambling of arguments in this language. This study also argues against the relationship between Case-marking and scrambling, showing that non-specific bare NPs can scramble to various positions in Turkish.
... Turkish is a scrambling language that allows morphologically Case-marked elements to occur freely in both pre-verbal and post-verbal positions. Post-verbal scrambling is uniformly into an A′-position (nonargument-position) in Turkish (Kural, 1992;Temürcü, 2005). As for the pre-verbal field, this study is concerned with only scrambling into the clause-initial position. ...
... As opposed to post-verbal scrambling, clause-initial scrambling exhibits both A-(argument) and A′-properties. Merchant (1995), Aygen (2003), and Temürcü (2005) suggest that clause-initial scrambling is into an A-position, while Kural (1992) claims that it can best be analyzed as A′-movement. 1 Öztürk (2004), on the other hand, argues that clause-initial scrambling in Turkish can be into either an A-position or an A′-position. ...
... (3))) leads to binding anomalies. The sentence in (4) illustrates that nothing changes when the anaphor is embedded in a larger DP (The pro analysis is from Temürcü, 2005): ...
Clause-initial scrambling in Turkish exhibits both A- and A′-properties. Some authors suggest that it is into an A-position, while others consider that it targets an A′-position. There is also another view, which suggests that both A- and A′-scrambling exist in Turkish. On the other hand, considering the interaction between scrambling and information structure, i.e. topic and focus of the sentence, this study shows that previous proposals cannot account for the issue. Following Saito (2003), it is proposed that a derivational approach to scrambling where lexical features of the items undergoing scrambling are interpreted on a selectional basis allows us to deal with the issue in Turkish more properly, with no need to refer to the A/A′-contrast. Using this framework, I claim that clause-initial scrambling in Turkish is a uniform operation, which moves scrambled elements into a position where reconstruction is allowed. This study also reveals that the phenomenon called ‘lethal ambiguity’ (McGinnis, 2004) can help to understand the focusing effects in clause-initial scrambling in Turkish, which confused most of the proposals previously made.
... This is based on the generative linguistic theory (Chomsky, 1981), which holds that when an NP moves to another position within a clause, a trace (or a phonologically silent copy) is assumed to be left behind in its canonical position. In Turkish linguistics, pre-verbal scrambling as in (1b), is generally considered to have A(rgument)-movement (i.e., movement to argument positions; see, e.g., Temürcü, 2005), other existing claims, however, hold that pre-verbal scrambling can be analysed as A′movement (movement to non-argument positions; see Kural, 1992) or as having both movement types (Öztürk, 2005). Given the theoretical dispute, here we follow İşsever (2007) who claims that, independent of the A/A′-contrast, clause-initial scrambling in Turkish is a uniform operation, which moves scrambled elements into a position where reconstruction is allowed. ...
... The examples in (1c)-(1f), on the other hand, illustrate post-verbal scrambling, where an object NP (1c) or a subject NP (1d) or both (1e)-(1f) moves to a post-verbal position where they are normally not assigned under canonical word order conditions. That is, post-verbal constituents in (1c)-(1f) are assumed to involve rightward movement to non-argument positions (i.e., A′-movement) (e.g., Kornfilt, 2005;Temürcü, 2005). Therefore, we assume that, in (1c), the subject NP stays in its base-generated canonical position and the object NP moves to a non-argument post-verbal position whereas, in (1d), the subject NP moves to a non-argument post-verbal position and the object NP stays in its base-generated position. ...
Background: People with aphasia (PWA) have been shown to encounter difficulties in processing sentences with non-canonical (i.e., derived) word order. Although previous research points to similar impairment patterns in non-canonical structures in aphasia across many languages, there is only little agreement among authors why PWA experience these impairments.
Aims: This study aims to unveil whether and how far fluent and non-fluent PWA speaking Turkish, a flexible word order language, are impaired in comprehending different conditions of word order alignments in declarative sentences.
Methods & Procedures: Using a picture-matching paradigm, we examined two groups of Turkish speakers with aphasia: fluent PWA (n = 7) and non-fluent PWA (n = 10), and a matched reference group of non-brain-damaged controls (NBDs, n = 16). Participants listened to simple declarative sentences in four conditions: Subject – Object – Verb (SOV), SVO, OVS, and OSV. They were asked to point to the corresponding visual display that best depicts the sentence. Data were analysed with generalized linear mixed-effects regression models in R.
Outcomes & Results: Our findings have shown that the PWA performed less well than the NBDs overall, and that while the fluent PWA showed no condition differences at all, the non-fluent PWA performed worse in object-first (OVS/OSV) sentences than subject-first sentences (SOV/SVO), and no further condition differences were found.
Conclusions: We discuss that the data presented in this study support the theories that (i) predict derived structures to be affected in aphasia and that (ii) hold lexically restricted sentence material between moved objects and their base-generated positions to pose challenges in aphasic sentence comprehension. We also suggest that high structural frequency of subject-first sentences might have worked in favour of the PWA, rendering the comprehension of these structures easier to process.
... In the context of the questions in (16), the pattern OSAV in (15b) is suitable. Both the object and the subject are topics (Kural 1997, Temürcü 2005 In (15c), the subject can have a topic reading, if both the object and the adverb are topics as well. The same is also true for the patterns OASV and AOSV, with the same context questions for (15c) and (15d) Interestingly, it should be noted that the type of topic that occurs in all the examples (15) involves givenness, which is exactly what defi nes familiar topics. ...
... In other words, the Q alguns 'some' takes scope over (hence, c-commands) the universal Q todos 'all'. Based on Turkish, Temürcü (2005) establishes the possible scopal relations between two quantifi ers: ...
This paper explores two possible syntactic confi gurations of multiple topics attested across languages, namely the strict vs. free arrangement of fronted topics in the left periphery. I suggest that these rigid/fl exible devices can be explained by implementing Chomsky's (2008) C-toT feature inheritance mechanism so as to include both agreement features and discourse features (Miyagawa, 2005; 2010), in combination with Richards' (1999) multiple-specifi er approach to multiple movement, though subject to modifi cations. In my system, the possibility of free ordering of multiple topics is ultimately the consequence of lowering discourse features from C to T and specifying T as a multiple-attractor in the relevant language. This is the case of languages such as Spanish, as opposed to English. The specifi c type of topic feature which percolates to T in languages such as Spanish may attract familiar topics (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007) to spec-TP.
... The properties PNI-ed arguments share with properargumentsreflectthenominalstatus,thatistheycheckac-selectionalfeatureof the verb, they are assigned a θ-role.Theycanalsoappearwithadjectivalmodification, which is one of the key characteristics that separates pseudo-noun incorporation from 16 Areviewersuggestsanalternativeaccountofthe3/4puzzlewithpossessorphrases.Thecontrastbetween (73) and (74) could also be explained by assuming that base-generation of a possessor in sententialinitial/finalpositionisallowed,butthatofapossessumisnot.Althoughboththeoriesrelyonadhoc assumptions in one way or another, the current account nevertheless has an advantage. Whereas the VP-movement account only relies on the assumption that remnant possessor phrase movement is not an option, the alternative approach assumes that leftward dislocation from base position on the one hand canresultfrombasegenerationandontheotherisexcludedforpossessums.Sincethereisindependent evidence based on binding and scope for leftward dislocation to instantiate leftward movement (Termücü 2005), the alternative account runs into additional complications. ...
While movement of pseudo-incorporated arguments seems to be restricted generally, there is considerable variation across languages to what extend dislocation can take place. Whereas Turkish, German, and Hindi have been shown to allow for certain movement operations, pseudo-incorporated objects in Tamil for example are argued to require surface adjacency with the verb. This paper provides new evidence against surface adjacency in Tamil. More importantly, the study points out a striking parallel between movement of pseudo-incorporated objects and the respective VP-movement patterns within Tamil, Mongolian, Turkish, and German. Pseudo-incorporated objects are argued to constitute partially verbal categories, which explains the movement patterns, along with two other trademark properties of pseudo-incorporation – lack of case marking and scope inertness.
... 154). On the other hand, Temürcü (2005) thinks that, except postverbal scrambling, Turkish has only Ascrambling and analyzes the case with contrastive focus as a case of sloppy identityi.e., the binding relation between the arguments is established in a non-syntactic (discursive) domain (see also İşsever, 2007). ...
This study investigates the reason why wh phrases are illegitimate in postverbal positions in Turkish while they are free to scramble in the preverbal area. The common view in the literature is that prosodic and interpretive properties of focus and wh phrases, i.e. taking obligatory primary stress and being non-recoverable, are inconsistent with the properties of the postverbal field, which is a destressed area reserved for backgrounded elements. Focusing mainly on wh data, this study proposes that phonological and interpretive effects of postverbal wh phrases that cause ungrammaticality can be derived from overt syntax. Building on empirical facts revealing the scope of focus is read directly from overt syntax, it is proposed that a postverbal wh phrase, being a variable, stays in a position where it cannot be bound by its operator, hence the ungrammaticality.
... Zehra go-fut comp home-dat 'Because Zehra was going to go home . . .' 16 The syntactic nature of the postverbal position in Turkish is controversial (see Kural 1994Kural , 1997Göksel and Tsiplakou 1996;Göksel 1998Göksel , 2011Kornfilt 1998Kornfilt , 2005Takano 2005;Temürcü 2005; Özge and Bozşahin 2010, Öztürk 2011 for various analyses). One hypothesis based on precedence relations of postverbal constituents is that there is no hierarchical structure in this position (Takano 2005;Kornfilt 2005;Göksel 2011). ...
In this article we discuss non-local doubling in Greek and Turkish, a hitherto unanalysed aspect of these languages, and its implications for the interfaces. In non-local doubling, the reduplicated item is not located next to its base but at some other position in the clause depending on language-specific constraints. Interestingly, the attested type of doubling is not purely sensitive to syntactic nodes as in other languages (e.g. Dutch, Afrikaans), since we show that it targets a prosodic constituent. We argue that both Greek and Turkish employ an empty emphatic morpheme which has a two-legged exponence: One exponent is some phonological phrase in a clause and the other is its clone, placed farther than its source at the right periphery of the clause. We further discuss the variation between Greek and Turkish in terms of the prosodic structure of the two languages, showing that the differences lie in (i) the prosodic status of the copied element, (ii) the relative degree of free word order, and (iii) the properties of the right periphery (postverbal/postsentential). We thus propose that doubling is a general mechanism found across languages, and it is not only morphological or syntactic units, but also prosodic ones that can serve as input to this ubiquitous process.
... It remains to be tested whether this observation finds independent support in other domains such as production or acquisition. However, post-verbal position hosts redundant arguments in Turkish (Temürcü, 2005) so it seems plausible to reason that if the subject is redundant in one context, it is more likely to be dropped rather than being dislocated whereas redundant objects are more likely to be backgrounded. This is also in line with the frequency pattern reported in Demiral (2008) suggesting that subject drop is more frequent than object drop in Turkish. ...
This paper discusses the derivation of the crossing path configuration in multiple fronting constructions in Turkish in which elements of two localities—the root clause and the embedded clause—are fronted out of their respective domains to the left periphery of the matrix clause. Local and long distance fronting in Turkish are motivated by the information structure features [±F]. It is argued that the crossing path configuration in such constructions is the consequence of the effect of the Principle of Transparency in Binding Relations which has the effect of reversing the constituent order resulting from movement motivated by Agree.
This book is an introduction to syntactic theory and analysis which can be used for both introductory and advanced courses in theoretical syntax. Offering an alternative to the standard generative view of the subject, it deals with the major issues in syntax with which all theories are concerned. It presents syntactic phenomena from a wide range of languages and introduces students to the major typological issues that syntactic theories must address. A generous number of exercises is included, which provide practice with the concepts introduced in the text and in addition expose the student to in-depth analysis of data from many languages. Each chapter contains suggestions for further reading which encompass work from many theoretical perspectives. A separate teaching guide is available.
Recent work in theoretical syntax has revealed the strong explanatory power of the notions of economy, competition, and optimization. Building grammars entirely upon these elements, Optimality Theory syntax provides a theory of universal grammar with a formally precise and strongly restricted theory of universal typology: cross-linguistic variation arises exclusively from the conflict among universal principles.Beginning with a general introduction to Optimality Theory syntax, this volume provides a comprehensive overview of the state of the art, as represented by the work of the leading developers of the theory. The broad range of topics treated includes morphosyntax (case, inflection, voice, and cliticization), the syntax of reference (control, anaphora, and pronominalization), the gammar of clauses (complementizers and their absence), and grammatical and discourse effects in word order. Among the theoretical themes running throughout are the interplay between faithfulness and markedness, and various questions of typology and of inventory.
Contributors Peter Ackema, Judith Aissen, Eric Bakovic, Joan Bresnan, Hye-Won Choi, João Costa, Jane Grimshaw, Edward Keer, Géraldine Legendre, Gereon Müller, Ad Neeleman, Vieri Samek-Lodovici, Peter Sells, Margaret Speas, Sten Vikner, Colin Wilson, Ellen Woolford
Bradford Books imprint
This thesis, in contrast, argues for a non-configurational approach. It shows that the claim that Focus-movement and Topicalisation instantiate A-bar-movement and A-movement respectively is based on insufficient evidence. This claim is motivated by the absence of weak crossover effects in Topicalisation and their presence in Focus-movement. However, this study argues that the weak crossover effect is not a valid diagnostic of the A/A-bar distinction, since some cases of Wh-questions, the prototypical instance of A-bar movement, do not give rise to weak crossover effect. Further, in the Discourse Configurational approach, CLLD is treated as an instance of base-generation rather than movement, because it does not license parasitic gaps. In this thesis, CLLD is analysed as adjunct extraction and it is shown that the unavailability of parasitic gaps is a general property of adjunct extraction. Further, this study demonstrates that Focus-movement, Topicalisation and CLLD exhibit the same syntactic properties and instantiate the same extraction mechanism. Thus, they are given a unified syntactic treatment.
Even though the relevance of non-truth-conditional notions like 'topic' and 'focus' in sentence structure and interpretation has long been 'recognized, there is little agreement on the exact nature of these notions and their role in a model of linguistic competence. Following the information-packaging approach (Chafe 1976, Prince 1986), this study argues that these notions are primitive elements in the informational component of language. This component, informatics, is responsible for the articulation of sentences qua information, where information is defined as that part of propositional content which constitutes a contribution of knowledge to the hearer's knowledge-store. Informational primitives combine into four possible distinct information-packaging instructions, which direct hearers to retrieve the information of a sentence and enter it into their knowledge-store in a specific way.^ After a discussion of previous approaches to the informational articulation of the sentence, a hierarchical articulation is proposed: sentences are divided into the focus, which is the only information of the sentence, and the ground, which specifies how that information fits in the hearer's knowledge-store. The ground is further divided into the link, which denotes an address in the hearer's knowledge-store under which s/he is instructed to enter the information, and the tail, which provides further directions on how the information must be entered under a given address.^ Empirical support for this representation of information packaging comes especially from the surface encoding of instructions in Catalan, which is then contrasted with that of English. Using a multistratal syntactic theory, it is then proposed that information packaging is structurally and purely represented at the abstract level of IS, which acts as an interface with informatics. Finally, in order to further argue for informatics as an autonomous linguistic component, some proposals that attempt to include informational notions under logical semantics are reviewed and countered.^ This study is an effort to gain insight into one subdomain of pragmatics by integrating it into the larger process of language understanding. This is done by giving otherwise elusive informational notions a specific role in the component responsible for the entry of information into the hearer's knowledge-store.
It is a well-known characteristic of German syntax that “incomplete” or “partial” constituents can be fronted. Consider the following examples involving topicalization of a verbal category.1
