fI 1 1 3 rrrrrrrrr1822 00070 n rr8354 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA San Diego The Relational Structure of Turkish Syntax A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Inci Zilhra Ozkaragoz Committee in charge: Professor Sandra Chung, Chairperson Professor Edward Klima Professor Margaret Langdon Professor David Jordan Professor Michael Meeker 1986 Copyright 1986 by Inci• Zuhra•• Ozkaragoz•• - The dissertation of Inci. Zuhra.. .Ozkaragoz .. is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: I /.- &l a--,_ .. /<Zx-v-·/ ·· Chairperson University of California, San Diego 1986 iii Table of Contents Page List of Abbreviations . vii Acknowledgements ................................ viii Vita, Publications and Fields of Study .......... x Abstract . xi Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1 Relational Grammar ........................... 6 1 • 1 Introduction .............................. 6 1 . 2 Clause Structure .......................... 7 1 • 3 Typology of Strata and Some Defined Concepts ......................... 1 1 1 • 4 Well-formedness Conditions ................ 1 3 2 Aspects of Turkish Grammar ................... 1 4 2. 1 Introduction .............................. 1 4 2.2 Word Order ................................ 1 4 2.3 Nominal Morphology ........................ 16 2. 3. 1 Case Marking and Articles ................. 1 6 2.3.2 Pronouns .................................. 29 2.4 Verbal Morphology ......................... 33 2. 4. 1 Final 1 and Person and Number Agreement ... 33 2.4.2 Tense and Aspect .......................... 35 2.5 Monoclausal Syntax ........................ 36 2. 5. 1 Advancements .............................. 3b 2.5.1.1 Passive ................................... 37 2.5.1.2 Unaccusative Advancement .................. 40 2.5.1.3 Benefactive to 3 Advancement ............... 42 2.5.2 Demotions ................................. 44 2.5.2.1 2 to 3 Retreat ............................ 44 2.6 Two Conditions and a Surface Structure Constraint on PRO ......................... 53 3 Reflexives ................................... 58 3. 1 Introduction .............................. 58 3.2 Controllers of kendi Reflexivization ...... 59 3.3 Controllers of -In Reflexivization ........ 71 3.4 Multiattachment vs. Non-multiattachment ... 73 3. 4. 1 Analyses for the kendi and -In Constructions ............................ 75 3.4.1.1 The Oblique Law ........................... 79 3.4.1.2 Derived Multiattachments .................. 80 3.4.1.3 Morphology ................................ 85 3.4.1.4 Conditions on Controllers ................. 85 3.4.1.5 Yalniz 'Only' ............................. 86 3.4.1.6 2 to 3 Retreat ............................ 86 3.4.1.7 Benefactive to 3 Advancement .............. 92 3.4.1.8 Causative ................................. 95 iv Appendix: Reflexive Causee Constraint • • • • • • • • • 104 4 Causatives ..................................... 109 4. 1 Introduction ............................... 109 4.2 Universal Clause Union and Turkish Causatives ........................ 11 0 4.3 Passive and Causative ...................... 117 4. 3. 1 Missing Subject Causatives ................. 11 8 4.4 Aissen and Hankamer's Lexical Approach ..... 132 4.5 Counterproposal to AH's Lexical Analysis ... 137 4. 5. 1 The Causative Condition .................... 140 4.5.2 Further Support for Condition (34) ......... 142 4.5.2.1 The Auxiliary olmak ........................ 144 4.5.2.2 2 to 3 Retreat ............................. 1 46 4.5.2.3 Benefactive to 3 Advancement ............... 148 4.5.2.4 Object Incorportion ........................ 1 5 1 4.6 Conclusion ................................. 155 5 The Unaccusative Hypothesis in Turkish ........ 157 5.1 Introduction ............................... 157 5.2 Turkish-internal Evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis ................................ 163 5.2.1 The Gerund Suffix -ArAk .................... 163 5.2.1.1 Conditions for Grammaticality .............. 167 5.2.1.2 Semantic Accounts of the -ArAk Construction .............................. 171 5.2.1.3 Evidence from -ArAk for the Unaccusative Hypothesis ................... 180 5.2.1.4 The Interaction of PRO and -ArAk ........... 188 5.2.2 Predicates Consisting of Loanwords and the Auxiliaries etmek and olmak ............... 196 5.2.3 Double Causatives .......................... 211 6 Impersonal Passives of Intransitive Predicates . 223 6. 1 Introduction ............................... 223 6.2 Impersonal Passives of Unaccusative Predicates ................................ 226 6. 3. Impersonal Passives of Personal Passives ... 240 6. 3. 1 Introduction ............................... 241 6.3.2 Al terna ti ve Analyses ....................... 250 6.3.3 Three Pieces of Evidence Consistent v1ith (32) ................................. 252 6.3.4 Relativization ............................. 256 6.3.4.1 Argument One: PRO and Chomeur ............. 260 6.3.4.2 Argument Two: The Dummy ................... 265 6.3.5 Conclusion ................................. 268 6.4 Further Alternative Analyses for Impersonal Passives of Unaccusatives and of Personal Passives .................................. 270 6. 4. 1 Doub 1 e Du mm y Birth . 272 6.4.1.1 Italian UHS Constructions ................... 273 6.4.1.2 Turkish PRO Constructions .................. 279 6. 4. 2 Postal' s Account ........................... 288 V 6.4.2.1 Impersonal Constructions ············~··· ... 288 6.4.2.2 Arguments Against Postal's Analysis ........ 293 6. 4. 3 Knecht' s Account ........................... 304 References .................................... ...I~,2 List of Abbreviations 1pl first person plural 1sg first person singular 2pl second person plural 2sg second person singular 3pl third person plural 3sg third person singular AUX auxiliary ABIL ablative Abs absolutive AGG accusative AOR aorist BEN benefactive GAUS causative Cho chomeur COND conditional D dummy DAT dative Erg ergative FUT future GEN genitive GL glide INF infinitive LOG locative OBL oblique OP object participle PASS passive PL plural POSS possessive FROG progressive PRESUMP presumptive PST past REFL reflexive SP subject participle vii Acknowledgements Though they are many, I will attempt to enumerate, with gratitude, the people who have helped me to reach this point by providing either moral support or technical assis­ tance when it was needed. This dissertation would not have been possible without the cooperation of the following native speakers: Gulumser Abut, Hilseyin Abut, Zuhal Akbark, Serdar Canogul­ lar~, Erkan Cedimoglu, Omer Egecioglu, Ali Ersen, Sad~k Esener, Resa Kaftan, ~irzat Kavadarl~, Engin Keskinel, Asl4han Tolun, and Gonul Veli9elebi. Special thanks to my principal consultants Asl~, ~irzat, Serdar, Ali, and Sad~k, who gave their time to this endeavor so patiently and cheer­ fully. My interest in linguistics was originally instigated by visiting Cornell Professor Herbert L. Kufner at Bogazi9i University in Istanbul. His enthusiasm for linguistics was infectious; his teaching excellent. I am indebted to him for encouraging me to continue the study of linguistics in the U.S. I am also grateful to Professors Richard Murphy and Hikmet Sebilktekin of Bogazi9i University for their unwavering confidence in me. Jorge Hankamer of UC Santa Cruz (then, of Harvard), who was also a visiting professor at Bogazi9i University, greatly influenced the course my study of linguistics in the U.S. has taken. His superb teaching, his patience, and his love of Turkish syntax were the key. These professors possess another quality I would like to highlight: they truly enjoy interacting with stu­ dents. Their interest in me as a student was invaluable to my development as a linguist and as a person. As a graduate student at UCSD, I was very fortunate to have David Perlmutter as one of my teachers. I learned a great deal about universal grammar from him. His influence on my linguistics career is evident in the following pages of this dissertation, which was written within the framework of Relational Grammar, as developed by Paul Postal and him­ self. Sandra Chung, who was my advisor, was invaluable in the creation of this dissertation. I have benefitted greatly from her quick intellect and her ability to take an amorphous idea and give constructive suggestions. Also, at different stages of the evolution of this dissertation, I profitted from correspondence with Edward Keenan, Laura Knecht, and Paul Postal. Interaction with fellow colleagues was equally rewarding. I have enjoyed working and playing with: viii William Davies, Donna Gerdts, Jeanne Gibson, Nora Gonzalez, Grant Goodall, Bruce Hawkins, Marie Helmsmoortel, Annie Olie, Eduardo Raposo, William Seiter, Chi-lin Shih, Mike Smith, and Janis Williamson. For their patience, I thank my parents, Ethem and Nihal. For her unfailing encouragement and emotional sup­ port, I thank my sister, Tillin. Last, but definitely not least, I thank Milan Georgevich who has been, among many other things, a sounding board for my lows and highs. Through it all, his encouragement and positivism did much for my spirits. ix VITA Born - Ankara, Turkey 1976 - A.B., Bogazi9i University; Istanbul, Turkey 1976-1977 - Masters Program in Linguistics, Bogazi9i University 1979 - M.A., University of California, San Diego 1981 - C.Phil., University of California, San Diego 1986 - Doctor of Philosophy, University of California,