Core Functional Categories are defined to be v 0 , T 0 , C 0. They differ in that T 0 is not treated as a phase head, while C 0 and v 0 are assumed to be phase heads: 1) a) [+ phase]: C 0 , v(*). b) [− phase]: T 0. These heads are assumed to bear uninterpretable φ-features. T 0 forms a defective a domain unless it is selected by C 0. In other words, if T 0 is selected by the phase head C 0 , it starts bearing a full φ-feature set; otherwise, it cannot inherit the features from C 0 , which leads to a defective domain allowing exceptional case marking (henceforth, ECM). Accordingly, T 0 cannot also delete the features of the goal it enters an agree relation. In this respect, the defective features are Case/T 0 features in the sense of Pesetsky & Torrego (2007). At this point, some other studies suggest that the defectivity is peculiar to only phase heads, and that T 0 is ruled out of this argumentation: 2) a) [+ [+/− defective]]: C 0 , v 0. b) [− [+/− defective]]: T 0. There is an asymmetry in the understanding of defectivity between these two reasoning. The aim of this study is to discuss this asymmetry, and present evidence as to which distinction on defectivity does exist. We employed ECM data in Turkish to discuss the relevant distinction with reference to specific empirical proofs such as long distance scrambling, binding and negative polarity items. The results of the study support in favor of Pesetsky & Torrego (2007).

No abstract

Radford (1988: p. 101) differentiated between the phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs on both conceptual and empirical grounds. He suggested eight different tests with respect to their empirical dimensions. The aim of the study is to seek an answer to the question as to whether there is a distinction between these two kinds of verbs within the framework of the tests of Radford (1988) which are applicable to Turkish data (e.g. scrambling, sentence fragment and adverb placement) and the tests we have suggested (preposition alteration, cleft structures and synonymy). The subsidiary aim of the study is to observe the theoretical implications of such a distinction with respect to the discussions over the question as to whether PPs do really constitute a phase in the sense of Chomsky (2001 & subsequent studies). As for the first question, the first intuitional observations show that there is a distinction between such verb phrases as "karşı çık-" (lit. to stand against), and "karşısına çık-" (lit. to stand in front of sb.) on semantic grounds. The empirical tests also show that phrasal verbs do exist in Turkish unlike the common view in literature, and that they behave in a different manner than prepositional verbs. Depending on the above-stated empirical tests and intuitive judgments, this distinction may also provide insights as to the phasehood of PPs in that the agreeing PPs in Turkish can constitute phases while the bare PPs cannot.

No abstract

There are studies within literature which claim that nominal phrases such as DPs also constitute phases in addition to v*