Cover not available
Part of
Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries
Edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie and Peter Sells
[Typological Studies in Language 116] 2017
► pp. 251–292

Chapter 10
Turkish and Turkic complex noun phrase constructions

| Syracuse University
| Institute of Humanities and Indigenous Peoples of the North, Yakutsk, Russia

We propose an account for two different language types, with data from two Turkic languages. One type (Sakha) allows NMCCs with loose semantic and formal connections between the noun and the clause. The other type (Turkish) does not allow such constructions. In Turkish-type Turkic, the head’s semantic features in NMCCs impose requirements on the morpho-syntax of a complement clause; in RCs, the subjecthood versus non-subjecthood of the target dictates different morphological properties onto the clause’s predicate. The Sakha type languages do not exhibit such constraints, given the clause’s status as an adjunct in both constructions. We further show that not only Turkish-type languages, but also Sakha-type languages obey syntactic island constraints, as adjuncts are more opaque for extractions than complements; hence even this type of language can be sensitive to islands.

Keywords: Turkish, Sakha, relative clauses, noun complement constructions, clausal arguments and adjuncts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Turkish and Sakha constructions headed by a noun or noun phrase: Brief description of their basic properties
    • 2.1Turkish
      • 2.1.1Turkish N-complement clause constructions as phrasal compounds
      • 2.1.2Turkish relative clause constructions as nominal phrases with “adjectival” modifiers
      • 2.1.3Relative clauses have gaps, N-complement clause constructions do not
      • 2.1.4Additional morpho-syntactic properties of relative clauses which are different from those of noun-complement constructions in Turkish
    • 2.2Sakha: More Japanese-like, but not completely
  • 3.Brief comparison of island violations, gapless RCs, and CNPs with loose head-to-clause connections
    • 3.1Sakha
      • 3.1.1Island violations in Sakha
      • 3.1.2Gapless RCs in Sakha
      • 3.1.3CNPs with loose head-to-clause connection in Sakha
    • 3.2Turkish
      • 3.2.1Island violations in Turkish
      • 3.2.2Gapless RCs in Turkish
      • 3.2.3CNPs with loose head-to-clause connections in Turkish
  • 4.Returning to questions about syntactic islands
    • 4.1Apparent island violations
    • 4.2Apparently gapless relative clauses are gapped relative clauses targeting obliques
  • 5.Resumptive pronouns: To what extent are they optional or obligatory, and in what contexts?
    • 5.1Resumptive pronouns in Sakha
    • 5.2Resumptive pronouns in Turkish
  • 6.Islands in Sakha and Turkish: More on resumption, and effects of the islands’ placement in the matrix
    • 6.1Sakha
      • 6.1.1A well-formed instance of resumption as a saving device
      • 6.1.2Ill-formed instances of resumption in Sakha island violations
    • 6.2Turkish
    • 6.3Comparisons
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.11kor
References
Cagri, Ilhan
2005 Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1998 Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Erteschik, Nomi
1973 On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Kim, Jong-Bok
2004 Are there double relative clauses in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 315–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Knecht, Laura
1976 The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participles in Turkish. Proceedings of NELS 6: 123–135.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1977 Against the universal relevance of the shadow pronoun hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 412–418.Google Scholar
1984 Case Marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
1985 Infinitival relative clauses and complementation in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, General Session, William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds), 221–235. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
1987 Beyond binding conditions: The case of Turkish. In Studies on Modern Turkish, Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo T. Verhoeven (eds), 105–120. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In Turkish Linguistics Today, Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo T. Verhoeven (eds), 60–92. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
1996 Turkish and configurationality. In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Vol. 1, Bengisu Rona (ed.), 111–125. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.Google Scholar
1997 Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2000a Local and long distance reflexives in Turkish. In Long Distance Reflexives, Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & C.-T. James Huang (eds), 197–226. San Diego CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32], Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds), 121–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin, Kuno, Susumu & Sezer, Engin
1980 A note on crisscrossing double dislocation. In Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Susumu Kuno (ed.), 185–242. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B.
1963 The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington IN & The Hague: Indiana University & Mouton. (Version referred to here: 1968, 5th printing).Google Scholar
1965 Turkish nominalizations and a problem of ellipsis. Foundations of Language 1(2): 112–121.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
1997 Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach [Studies in Language Companion Series 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meral, Hasan Mesut
2006 Resumptive pronouns in Turkish. In Advances in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of ICTL 12, Semiramis Yağcıoğlu, S. & Ayşen Cem-Değer (eds), 223–233. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin
1986 The unmarked sentential subject constraint in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics [Typological Studies in Language 8], Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds), 123–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Underhill, Robert
1972 Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry 3(1): 87–99.Google Scholar
Whitman, John
2013 The prehead relative clause problem. In Proceedings of WAFL 8, Umut Özge (ed.), 361–380. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

WU, Tong
2022. The general noun-modifying clause construction beyond Eurasia. Linguistic Typology 26:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.