Abstract
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 is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: ACC ‘accusative’; COM ‘comitative’; DAT ‘dative’; GEN ‘genitive’; HS ‘hearsay’; INF ‘infinitive’; NEG ‘negation’; NOM ‘nominalizer’; PAST ‘past tense’; PL ‘plural’; POSS ‘possessive’; PROG ‘progressive’; REP ‘reportive’.
- 2.
Aygen (2003) presents arguments to the effect that subjects typically raise to Spec,TP in root and finite subordinate clauses in Turkish to check for Case and to value the φ-features T0 inherits from the phase head C0.
- 3.
Arguments to the effect that Turkish has V-to-T-to-C movement have been put forth by Kural (1993). Kural based his arguments on constructions with NPI subjects and rightward adjunction of constituents to the postverbal domain. Counterarguments against Kural were presented by Aygen (2003) who argued that V-to-T-to-C movement would in fact result in the illicit adjunction of the complement clause to its own maximal projection, given that the complex head of the CP they adjoin to also includes their own head. Regarding licensing of NPIs as subjects, Aygen suggests several possible accounts without assuming V-to-T-to-C movement in root and finite embedded clauses. Among these are the possible availability of a distinct functional projection between TP and CP, that Neg might be c-commanding the base position of the NPI subject, and that NPI subject might not be in Spec,TP.
- 4.
The interaction between syntax and information structure has been addressed in different theoretical approaches in the literature. Kiss (1998, 2003) postulated some languages to be ‘discourse configurational’ where topic and focus occupy designated positions and [topic] forms a predicational relation with the rest of the sentence. Rizzi’s (1997, 2012) carthography of the information structure categories [topic/focus] placed the interaction between syntax and information structure at the representational level. Bayer and Trotzke (2015), Cardinaletti (2015) account for the syntax of discourse particles within the carthographic approach. Zubizaretta’s (1998, 2010) investigations into the syntax-semantics-prosody interface revealed the nature of the interaction between focus and prosody. Grewendorff and Sabel (1999) proposed the scrambling feature [∑] that triggers movement. In line with the assumptions of the feature percolation framework of Chomsky (2001), Miyagawa distinguishes between Agree-prominent (English type) and Focus-prominent (Japanese type) languages where the former license the percolation of φ-features from the phase head C to T-head, the latter that of the information structure feature FOCUS.
- 5.
A reviewer points out that the grammaticality difference between (6b) and (7) could be due to the fact that the moved constituent in the two cases are in fact in different positions. For those who find [6b] ungrammatical, the object is in Spec, TP, not Spec, CP. This is however not possible in (7) since the subject occupies Spec, TP and the object has to move to Spec, CP. The argument of the present paper however is that the moved constituents in both (6b) and (7) both occupy the same position, specifically Spec,TP. The reviewer also suggests that along the lines of van Urk (2015) the difference in grammaticality could be due to the nature of the features involved in movement. However, given the fact that the fronted constituents in (6b) and (7) are both motivated by the same feature, i.e. δ-feature, van Urk’s approach still falls short of explaining the difference in grammaticality.
- 6.
Kural (1992) argued that the A-properties of the fronted constituents are a consequence of a ban on reconstruction in Turkish which prohibits reconstruction to the base position. In (7) in which the immediately preverbal position is occupied by an element—the adverbial hemen ‘immediately’—the displaced constituent cannot reconstruct to its base position but to an intermediary position, yielding a grammatical structure. Crucial for Kural is the assumption that the immediately preverbal position, i.e. the base position of the fronted constituent, is focus position in Turkish. Restated within the copy theory of movement of minimalism (cf. Chomsky 1995), Kural’s account of (7) holds that the copy that is interpreted by LF is the one in the intermediate position, not the one in the base position whereas in (6b) it is the same copy, i.e. the higher one, that is transferred to LF and PF at Spell Out for interpretation. Kornfilt (2005) points out that Kural’s ban on reconstruction does not hold for some speakers who find (7) to be ungrammatical. The judgment indicates that local fronting is uniformly to an A-position in the grammar of those speakers.
- 7.
Within the EPP analysis of Chomsky (1995, 2000) and Miyagawa’s (2005) [Focus]-inheritance framework, Öztürk (2005) argued that T inherits the feature [Focus] from the phase head C in those cases in which the uninterpretable φ-features of T0 are checked by the agreement on the verb. Öztürk holds that in such cases the subject DP does not raise to Spec,TP. To check EPP, the VP internal constituent moves to Spec,TP, giving rise to its A-properties. In cases where the verb does not bear φ-features, on the other hand, the subject DP raises to Spec,TP to check the uninterpretable φ-features of T0. The VP internal constituent consequently moves to Spec, CP, hence its A’-properties. Öztürk’s evidence to the presence/absence of subject raising to Spec,TP is based on the scope relation between negation and the QP subject in sentences similar to (ia–b).
In (ib) but not in (ia) the subject raises to Spec,TP to check EPP. The QP subject therefore scopes over NEG in (ib). In (ia), the φ-features of T are checked by the verb which is overtly marked for agreement. The subject does not raise to Spec,TP but remains in its merge position. Hence NEG scopes over the QP subject in (ia). The VP-internal constituent raises to Spec,TP to check EPP and delete its [u-Focus] feature.
- 8.
İşsever (2007) assumes Saito’s (2003) derivational approach to scrambling where lexical features of the items undergoing scrambling are interpreted on a selectional basis. İşsever thus claims to present a uniform account of clause-initial scrambling in Turkish where scrambled elements are moved into a position where reconstruction is allowed. Temürcü (2005) argues for the presence of a functional projection FP immediately dominating IP. He assumes that constituents other than the subject can enter syntax with a strong EPP, i.e. [D], feature. In such cases, the subject cannot check the EPP feature of T, therefore the non-subject which bears the strong [D] feature moves to the specifier position of the functional phrase (FP) dominating T. The [V + T] complex adjoins to the head of FP, which results in the A-properties of the constituent in Spec,FP.
- 9.
JF&İ present arguments against Miyagawa’s (2010) PBCC account of binding based on the availability of copies for interpretation across transfer domains. JF&İ point out that the derivation in accordance with the tenets of PBCC gives rise to redundant copies of the displaced constituent which need to be marked as such.
- 10.
V-movement is not reflected in the examples within the text. The paths of DP movement and V-movement proceed in opposite directions in a Turkish clause- the former leftward, the latter rightward. It is nevertheless assumed that V moves to v and T within a clause.
- 11.
As pointed out by a reviewer, the construct ‘focus field’ as defined by G&Ö refers to pragmatic/discourse focus, not semantic focus as an alternative generator (Rooth 1992). It is possible to have a focused element inside the focus field as long as that focused element is introduced by a focus operator like yalnızca ‘only’ and is not prosodically prominent as the following example in which prosodically prominent ADA is the pragmatic focus while yalnızca mantı ‘only ravioli’ expresses an alternative set, i.e. köfte ‘meatballs’ in this case.
Pragmatic/discourse focus in Turkish is marked prosodically and can trigger movement. Semantic focus on the other hand is introduced by a focus operator and generates an alternative set, but does not generate movement. The interaction of the existential operator dA particle in Turkish and focus as generator of alternative sets was discussed by Göksel and Özsoy (2003). G&Ö argued that dA functions to assert the truth of one of the alternatives presupposed by focus.
- 12.
- 13.
Erteshik-Shir (1986) however argues against the claim that wh-elements are inherently focused.
- 14.
In multiple wh-phrase constructions in which no wh-phrase is assigned [+F] feature, the wh-phrases appear in positions corresponding to their NP/DP counterparts.
Şener (2007) accounted for such constructions by a PF-analysis where he claimed that Turkish has a V-adjacency constraint on wh-phrases in multiple wh-constructions. Şener analyzed the V-adjacency of wh-phrases as an output of the Verb Contiguity Condition which operates as a PF constraint on the syntactic representation.
Şener holds that the condition is transferred to PF via Spell-Out.
- 15.
Further evidence presented by Göksel and Özsoy (2000) are constructions with a wh-phrase and an adjunct with the assigned [+F] feature.
- 16.
Şener (this volume) argues for a similar conclusion regarding NSR in Turkish. He however assumes a cartographic approach to the phenomenon along the lines of Rizzi (1997, 2008).
- 17.
Şener (this volume).
- 18.
Embedded constructions can be finite or non-finite embedded constructions in Turkish where the distinction is based on the nature of the inflectional properties of the verb of the respective construction (Kornfilt 2001; Aygen 2003). Finite embedded constructions are those in which the embedded verb bears the inflectional endings typical of predicates of root clauses, as in (i).
The verb of non-finite constructions does not bear the same inflectional morphology as the verb of a root clause, but a nominalizer. Non-finite embeddings are CPs. That non-finite clauses are opaque domains with respect to binding; an anaphor within a non-finite clause cannot be bound by a potential antecedent external to the clause.
Aygen mentions that finite and non-finite embedded constructions differ with respect to licensing movement out of their respective domains. Kornfilt discusses the differences in subject case marking in argument and adjunct non-finite clauses.
- 19.
Overt movement out of a complex noun phrase as in (25a) behaves differently from covert movement of a constituent out of an island in Turkish. As (i) illustrates, Turkish licenses movement of wh-phrases out of a complex noun phrase.
Özsoy (1996) had proposed a feature percolation analysis for (i) along the lines of Nichigauchi (1992) where the wh-feature of the wh-phrase Kim-in ‘who-GEN’ percolates to the phrasal projection containing the relative clause, marking the DP as [+wh] so that the whole DP is pied-piped to Spec,CP at LF, rendering the structure interpretable..
- 20.
As the following example illustrates, the long distance fronted constituent can bind an anaphor in the subject phrase of its own clause. This shows that it moves to Spec, TP of its own clause before moving to Spec, CP of the matrix clause.
- 21.
With respect to Bošković’ (2008, 2012, 2013) DP/NP typology of languages, whether Turkish is a DP or an NP language has been extensively discussed in the literature. Öztürk (2006) and recently Bošković and Şener (2014) have argued that Turkish is an NP language. Arslan-Kechriotis (2008) however has put forth arguments to the effect that Turkish has a DP structure.
- 22.
Kornfilt (2005) discusses cases in which an adjunct of a DP moves to the postverbal position within a clause.
References
Aoun, J., and E. Benmamoun. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 569–597.
Aygen, Gülşat. 2003. Extractibility and the nominative case feature on tense. In Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. A.S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, E.E. Erguvanlı-Taylan, and A. Aksu-Koç, 81–94. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Bayer, Joseph, and Andreas Trotzke. 2015. The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles. In Discourse-oriented syntax, ed. J. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl, A. Trotzke, 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bošković, Zelig. 2000. Sometimes in Spec,CP, sometimes in situ. In Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 53–87. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Bošković, Zelig. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 589–644.
Bošković, Željko, and Serkan Şener. 2014. Turkish NP. Ms., University of Connecticut and Yeditepe University, Istanbul.
Bresnan, Joan, and S. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63 (4): 741–782.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2015. Italian verb-based discourse particles in non-assertive speech acts in German and Bellunese. In Discourse-oriented syntax, ed. J. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl, A. Trotzke, 71–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Minimalist essays in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52, 45. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. MIT occasional papers in linguistics, no. 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MIT Department of Linguistic and Philosophy.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. R. Freidin, C.P. Otero, M.L. Zubizarreta, 291–321. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In The minimalist program, ed. Noam Chomsky, 13–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Erguvanlı, Eser E. 1986. The function of word order in Turkish. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Publications.
Erkü, Feride. 1983. Topic, comment and word order in Turkish. In Minnesota papers in linguistics and philosophy of language, ed. C. Houlihan, 31–38.
Erteshik-Shir, Nomi. 1986. Wh-questions and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (2): 117–149.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005a. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. In Theoretical linguistics: Object shift, vol. 31, no. 1–2, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 1–46.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005b. Cyclic linearization and its interaction with other aspects of grammar: A reply. In Theoretical linguistics: Object shift, vol. 31, no. 1–2, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 235–262.
Göksel, Aslı, and A. Sumru Özsoy. 2003. dA: A focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua 113: 1143–1167.
Göksel, Aslı, and A. Sumru Özsoy. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish?. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, ed. A. Göksel, and C. Kerslake. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Grewendorf, Günther. 2005. The discourse configurationality of fronting. In The free word order phenomenon its syntactic sources and diversity, ed. J. Sabel and M. Saito, 163–180. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin/ New York.
Grewendorf, Günther, and Joachim Sabel. 1999. Fronting in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 1–65.
Horvath, Judith. 2007. Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, ed. Karimi, Simin, V. Samilian, and W.K. Wilkins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
İşsever, Selçuk. 2007. Towards a unified account of clause-initial scrambling in Turkish: A feature analysis. Turkic Languages 11 (1): 93–133.
İşsever, Selçuk. 2006. On the NSR and focus projection in Turkish. In Advances in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, ed. S. Yağcıoğlu, and A. Cem Değer, 421–435. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül UP.
Jimenez-Fernandez, Angel, and Selçuk İşsever. 2012. Deriving A/A′-effects in topic fronting: Intervention of focus and binding. In Current issues in generative linguistics, J. Błaszczak, B. Rozwadowska, and W. Witkowski. Wrocław, Poland: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics.
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, ed. S.D. Epstein and T.D. Seely. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiss, É.Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2): 245–273.
Kiss, É. Katalin. 2003. Argument scrambling, operator movement, topic movement in Hungarian. In Word order and scrambling, ed. S. Karimi, 22–44. Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntactic edges and linearization. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2001. Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. In The verb in Turkish, ed. Eser E. Taylan, 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal fronting in Turkish. In The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity, ed. J. Sabel and M. Saito, 163–180. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kural, Murat. 1992. Properties of scrambling in Turkish [manuscript, ver.1. UCLA].
Kural, Murat. 1993. V-to-T-(to-I)C movement in Turkish. In UCLA occasional papers in linguistics, ed. F. Beghelli and M. Kural, 11.
Lasnik, Howard, and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4): 687–720.
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A′ distinction and movement theory. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese: Syntax and s 22. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Word order and scrambling, ed. S. Karimi, 177–200. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005. On the EPP. In Perspectives on phases, ed. N. Richards and M. McGinnis, 201–236. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nichigauchi, Taisuke. 1992. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Özge, Umut, and Cem Bozşahin. 2010. Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua 120: 132–175.
Özsoy, A.S. 2015. Linearization in Turkish and minimality in binding. In Ankara papers in Turkish and Turkic linguistics, ed. D. Zeyrek, Ç. Sağın Şimşek, U. Ataş, and J. Rehbein, 163–188. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Özsoy, A. Sumru. 1996. A′-dependencies in Turkish. In Current issues in Turkish linguistics, ed. B. Rona. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
Özsoy, A. Sumru. 2003. An ordering constraint on the left periphery in Turkish. Paper presented at Mediterranean Syntax Meeting 1. University of Rhodes.
Özsoy, A. Sumru. 2009. Turkish as a non-wh-in-situ language.
Öztürk, Balkız. 2005. Case, referentiality, and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Palaz, Bilge. 2010. On the nature of anaphoric expressions kendi/kendisi and the clause structure of Turkish. MA Thesis. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.
Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 17, ed. J. Mcdonough and B. Plunkett, 484–499.
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 127–158. Cambridge, Mass/London: The MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2012. Cartography, criteria, and labelling. Blaise pascal lectures. University of Siena, University of Geneva.
Rochemont, Michael Shaun. 1978. A theory of stylistic rules in english. New York: Garland.
Rochemont, Michael Shaun. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rooryck, Johan, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2011. Dissolving binding theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 75–166.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous Aʹ′-movement. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. M.R. Baltin and A.S. Kroch, 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua 113/4–6: 481–518.
Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2): 283–319.
Şener, Serkan. 2007. Multiple wh‐questions in Turkish: An investigation of in-situness. In University of Connecticut working papers in linguistics, vol. 14, ed. M.R. Mondonedo, and S. Herdan, 131–170. Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, ed. D. Adger, C. de Cat, and G. Tsoulas. Kluwer.
Temürcü, Ceyhan. 2005. The interaction of syntax and discourse in word order variability: Data from Turkish. In Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları, Güray König, ed. I. Ozyildirim, D. Aydm, and A. Altan, 123–159. Istanbul: Multilingual.
Webelhuth, Gert. 1988. A universal theory of fronting. In Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 285–298.
Jimenez-Fernandez, Angel. (to appear). Phasal heads, discourse/agreement features, and word order. In Issues in mediterranean syntax, ed. A.S. Özsoy and A. Gürel.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2010. The syntax and prosody of focus: The Bantu-Italian connection. Iberia 2 (1): 131–168.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, ed. S. Epstein, and D. Seely, 269–304.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Özsoy, A.S. (2019). Derivation of Fronting in Turkish. In: Özsoy, A. (eds) Word Order in Turkish. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11385-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11385-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11384-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11385-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)