Proceedings of the First Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tu+ 1: Proceedings of the first workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the languages of Turkey November 21 - November 22, 2015 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Edited by Faruk Akkus¸, Isa˙ Kerem Bayırlı, Deniz Ozyıldız¨ c 2018 Published by GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association) Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Integrative Learning Center, 4th Floor 650 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. [email protected] glsa.hypermart.net ISBN-13: 978-1983844027 ISBN-10: 1983844020 Thank you The 1st Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the languages of Turkey (Tu+1) was held at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 21-22 November 2015, in collaboration with Yale University. In addition to the two invited talks by Sabine Iatridou (MIT) and Jaklin Kornfilt (Syracuse University), the workshop hosted 23 oral and poster presentations. The presenters came from 17 different institutions, 6 of which were non-US institutions. The articles in this proceedings volume are a selection of papers presented at Tu+1. Our hope is that this workshop will be held annually and that it will provide a platform for discussion of empirical and theoretical questions raised by Turkic languages and the languages spoken within Turkey. We are grateful to the linguistics departments at Yale and at UMass for sup- porting the workshop, morally, technically and financially. Rosetta Berger, Rajesh Bhatt, Robert Frank, Vincent Homer, John Kingston, Tom Maxfield and Michelle McBride deserve special mention. We would also like to thank all those who gave a helping hand during the workshop. We are grateful to the Graduate Linguistic Student Association for publishing this volume, to Leah Chapman for agreeing to design the cover, and last but not least, to our presen- ters and audience for making this workshop an enjoyable learning experience. The organizers and the editors Table of Contents Isa˙ Kerem Bayırlı On the complex connectives in Turkish 1 Jennifer Bellik Feature domains and lexically conditioned harmony in Turkish 17 Tatiana Bondarenko Subject marking and scrambling effects in Balkar nominalizations 27 Colin Davis Auxiliaries in North Azeri and some related issues 43 Ophélie Gandon Relative clause strategies in languages of East Anatolia: Divergence and convergence 57 Tamarae Hildebrandt Turkish scrambling within single clause wh-questions 73 Laura Kalin & Ümit Atlamaz Reanalyzing Indo-Iranian “stems”: A case study of Adıyaman Kurmanji 85 Jaklin Kornfilt Turkish comitatives: The genuine and the apparent 99 Sabine Laszakovits What Turkish conditionals can teach us about the question particle 127 Filiz Mutlu Iconic templates in Turkish 141 Matthew Tyler A Locality Restriction on Indexical Shift: Evidence from Turkish 151 Jonathan Washington An ultrasound study of the articulatory correlates of vowel anteriority in three Turkic languages 161 Gita Zareikar Aspect and evidentiality in Azeri 179 On the complex connectives in Turkish İsa Kerem Bayırlı Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1. Introduction This paper is concerned with the absence of free choice-type inferences in the context of several expressions in Turkish. The complex disjunction ya...ya... and complex conjunction hem...hem... do not give rise to free choice-type effects (i.e. strengtening to wide scope conjunction) in some contexts in which their simple versions do. To capture these observations, it is claimed here that we need to revise the conditions on the distribution of the exh operator. Spector (2014) has developed an analysis of French complex disjunction, in which the positive polarity nature of the complex disjunction is linked to its giving rise to “obligatory exclusivity inferences” (modelled as the obligatoriness of an exh operator c-commanding the complex disjunction). The analysis developed here retains this insight. It is shown, however, that the observation that ya...ya... is not acceptable in the scope of an existential modal is unexpected. The condition on the distribution of exh is revised so that more constructions (but the right ones) are ruled out. The analysis developed for ya...ya... is extended to the complex conjunction hem...hem.... The absence of the free choice with ya...ya... and hem...hem... are shown to follow from similar assumptions. Here is the outline. I briefly introduce (aspects of) the analysis of French complex disjunction by Spector (2014) and the derivation of free choice inferences in Fox (2007). I go on to explain why the unacceptability of the complex disjunction under an existential modal in Turkish does not follow from a combination of these two analyses and offer a new constraint on the distribution of the exh operator. Later in the paper, I tackle the issues concerning conjunction. 2. Preliminary Remarks In Turkish, there are (at least) two strategies for expressing disjunction. Two disjuncts can be separated by a single disjunction morpheme as in (1) © 2018 by Isa˙ Kerem Bayırlı Faruk Akku¸s, Isa˙ Kerem Bayırlı, Deniz Özyıldız (eds.): Tu+ 1, 1–15. GLSA Amherst. 2 İsa Kerem Bayırlı (1) Ekin dondurma ya-da çikolatalı puding yedi Ekin ice-cream or chocolate pudding eat.PAST.3sg ‘Ekin ate ice cream or chocolate pudding’ Another strategy is to repeat the morpheme ya on both disjuncts. I will call this strategy “complex disjunction”. “Complex” here is intended as a purely descriptive term in an attempt to contrast this construction to the “simple” one in (1). (2) Ekin ya dondurma ya-da çikolatalı puding yedi Ekin or ice-cream or chocolate pudding eat.PAST.3sg ‘Either Ekin ate ice cream or she ate chocolate pudding’ This paper is mainly about the properties of the complex disjunction in Turkish. In next section, I introduce some observations about ya...ya... with reference to the analysis of the complex disjunction in French developed by Spector (2014). Later, the analysis of free choice effects developed in Fox (2007) will be presented. These two studies form the basis for the analysis that is developed in this paper. 2.1 Spector (2014) on complex disjunction In this section, I present the analysis of the French complex disjunction by Spector (2014). In doing so, I have two ambitions. First, this will give me a chance to report some properties of the Turkish complex disjunction that are relevant to the analysis that I deveop later in the paper. Second, Spector’s analysis for the PPI-hood of the French complex disjunction will provide me with a “type of thinking” that will be at the core of my explanation for the unacceptability of ya...ya... under an existential modal. In introducing Spector’s analysis, I will be using examples from Turkish since all the relevant judgments that are crucial to Spector’s argumentation seem to be identical. That is to say, Spector’s analysis of the PPI- hood of the French complex disjunction soit...soit... can be extended to ya...ya... without any immediate problem that I can see. Let me start with simple disjunction in Turkish and contrast with ya...ya.... Simple disjunction gives rise to DeMorgan readings (~(p˅q)≡ ~p & ~q ) when it is in the scope of the negation: (3) Ekin dondurma ya-da çikolatalı puding yemedi Ekin ice-cream or chocolate pudding eat.NEG.PAST.3sg ‘Ekin ate neither ice cream nor chocolate pudding’ Spector notes that the complex disjunction in French (soit...soit...) is judged to be unacceptable in the scope of negation. The same observation can be extended to ya...ya.... (4) # Ekin ya dondurma ya-da çikolatalı puding yemedi Ekin or ice-cream or chocolate pudding eat.NEG.PAST.3sg ‘Ekin didn’t eat ice cream or chocolate pudding’ On the complex connectives in Turkish 3 Complex disjunction structures (in French and in Turkish) are licensed again when the negation is itself in the scope of a downward entailing operator (here negation). (5) (Antakya’ya gitmişken) ya künefe ya baklava yememek kabuledilebilir (once in Antakya) YA kunefe YA baklava eat.NEG acceptable bişey değil a.thing NEG ‘It is not an acceptable thing to not eat kunefe or baklava (once in Antakya)’ A description of these observations is to call ya...ya... a positive polarity item (PPI).1 The PPI-hood of ya...ya... seems to correlate with another property of this construction. Namely, it “triggers much stronger exclusivity inferences than” simple disjunction. The contrast in the following dialog exemplifies this. (6) A: Ali Ankara’ya ya-da İzmir’e gidecek Ali Ankara-to or İzmir-to go.will.3sg ‘Ali will go to Ankara or İzmir.’ B: Kesinlikle! Hatta ikisine de gidecek. ‘Absolutely! In fact, he will go both’ (7) A: Ali ya Ankara’ya ya İzmir’e gidecek Ali or Ankara-to or İzmir-to go.will.3sg B: # Kesinlikle! Hatta ikisine de gidecek ‘Absolutely! In fact, he will go both’ The idea is that, by uttering Kesinlikle! “Absolutely”, the speaker B commits herself to the truth of the first assertion. With simple disjunction, the exclusivity inferences can be cancelled and the speaker B’s response is felicitous. With ya...ya..., on the other hand, these inferences are obligatory (or almost obligatory) and the speaker B’s response is infelicitous as it does not observe this inference. As Spector notes, this is not reason to believe that the complex disjunction is the realization of the logical exclusive disjunction operator ⊻. As seen below, in the scope of a universal modal, the complex disjunction gives rise to readings that are incompatible with an exclusive analysis. 1 See Szabolcsi (2004) on the distribution of PPIs. For positive polarity items, anti-licensing is usually thought to be a local phenomenon (Szabolsci, 2004). That is, the positive polarity items are anti-licensed only in the scope of a clause-mate negation. With the complex disjunction, the situation is different. The complex disjunction in Turkish, just like the complex disjunction in French, is anti-licensed no matter how far negation is.