Binding as an A’-phenomenon?: Some remarks from Turkish
Palabras clave:
ronoun-anaphor complementarity, binding, A’-chains, TurkishResumen
This article argues against the morpheme specificity of Binding Theory conditions in terms of pronoun-anaphor complementarity and proposes a tripartite system for the language at issue, Turkish. Focusing on the locality-based problems of Condition A and B in terms of anaphor and pronoun binding, the article claims that binding of an anaphor can be explained as an A’-phenomenon. The empty topic operator merges with the anaphor and moves to the C-domain. The stranded anaphor inside the clause is licensed by the empty operator via an A’-chain and the lexical antecedent of the anaphor plays no licensing role.Descargas
Citas
Alexopoulou, Theodora. 2006. Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 57-111.
Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri. 2000. Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 1-39.
Arslan, Ceyda. 2006. Case as an Uninterpretable Feature. Ph.D. Dissertation. Boğaziçi University.
Aygen, Gülşat. 2002. Finiteness, case and clausal architecture. Ph. D. Dissertation. Harvard University.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government
and Binding. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan I
Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 195-208.
Enç, Mürvet. 1989. Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 7(1), 51-92.
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. 1986. Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in
Turkish. In Dan I Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209-231.
Fox, Dany & Jon Nissenbaum. 2004. Condition A and scope reconstruction. Linguistic
Inquiry 35(3), 474-485.
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-locality of Movement
Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hicks, Glyn. 2008. Why the Binding Theory doesn’t apply at LF? Syntax 11(3), 255-280.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2006. Pronouns in a Minimalist setting. Working Papers in
Linguistics 14, 47-80.
İnce, Atakan. 2006. Direct complement clauses as object control structures in Turkish.
In Erin Bainbridge & Brian Agbayani (eds.), Proceedings of WECOL 17.
California: California State University, 208-221.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel & Selçuk İşsever. 2012. Deriving A/A’-Effects in Topic
Fronting: Intervention of Focus and Binding. In Joana Blaszczak, Bozena Rozwadowska & Wojciech Witkowski (eds.), Current Issues in Generative Linguistics: Syntax, Semantics and Phonology. Wroclaw: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics, 8-25.
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Samuel D. Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 133-166.
Kerslake, Celia. 1986. NP deletion and pronominalization in Turkish. In Hendrick Boeschoten (ed.), Studies on Modern Turkish. Verhoeven: Tilburg University Press, 91-104.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case Marking, Agreement and Empty Categories in Turkish. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2001. Local and Long-Distance Reflexives in Turkish. In Peter Cole,
Gabriella Hermon & C.-T. James Huang (eds.), Long Distance Reflexives (Syntax
and Semantics 33). Bingley-West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing, 197-226.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2004. Agr in Turkish as an Expression of Categorial Features. In Meltem Kelepir & Balkız Öztürk (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 52, Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics II. Cambridge and MA.:MIT Press, 21-46.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Irina
Nikoloeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 305-332.
Kural, Murat. 1993. V-to-I-to-C in Turkish. In Filippo Beghelli & Murat Kural (eds.),UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, 17-54.
Lasnik, Howard & Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687-720.
Meral, Hasan Mesut. 2005. On some ECM constructions in Turkish. Ms. Boğaziçi University.
Meral, Hasan Mesut. 2010. Resumption, A’-chains and implications on clausal architecture. Ph.D. Dissertation. Boğaziçi University.
Özsoy, A. Sumru. 1984. On the syntactic properties of empty categories. In Ayhan Koç & Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 101-111.
Özsoy, A. Sumru. 1988. On complementation in Turkish: Possessed impersonal infinitives. In Sabri Koç (ed.), Studies on Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: Middle East Technical University, 299-311.
Özsoy, A. Sumru. 2001. On ‘small’ clauses, other ‘bare’ verbal complements and feature checking in Turkish. In Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (ed.), The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213-237.
Öztürk, Balkız. 2001. Turkish as a Non-Pro-Drop Language. In Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (ed.), The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239-259.
Öztürk, Balkız. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439-492.
Reuland, Eric. 2005. Binding conditions: how are they derived? In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 578-593.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 281-337.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), WH-Movement Moving On. Cambridge and Mass.: The MIT Press, 97-133.
Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2005. Strategies of Subject Extraction. Ms., University of Siena, University of Geneva.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Rudnev, Pasha. 2008. Some Syntax and Semantics of Long-Distance Reflexives in Turkish and Elsewhere. Ms. Umass.
Safir, Ken. 2008. Coconstrual and narrow syntax. Syntax 11(3), 330-355.
Sezer, Engin. 1979. On reflexivization in Turkish. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3(4), 748-759.
Sezer, Engin. 1991. Issues in Turkish Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University.
Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 587-612.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. Reconstruction, binding and scope. In Martin Everaert
& Henk von Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax IV. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 35-93.
Zidani-Eroğlu, Leyla. 1997. Exceptionally case-marked NPs as matrix objects. Linguistic
Inquiry 28(2), 219-230.
Descargas
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Las ediciones impresa y electrónica de esta Revista son editadas por el Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, siendo necesario citar la procedencia en cualquier reproducción parcial o total.Salvo indicación contraria, todos los contenidos de la edición electrónica se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional”
. Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa y el texto legal de la licencia. Esta circunstancia ha de hacerse constar expresamente de esta forma cuando sea necesario.
- Resumen 898
- PDF (English) 141
