What Type of Defective Feature Do Exceptionally Case-Marked Clauses of Turkish Bear?

Abstract

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).

Binding in Turkish Nominal Phrases: A Phase-Sliding Account

“…Overt-Finite Complement Clauses are unambiguously CPs being headed by an overt complementizer (i.e, diye), and null-Finite Complement Clauses also project a CP, but the C 0 head of their CP is not morphologically realized. ECM clauses with no agreement on the embedded verb are assumed to be defective clauses (Özgen & Aydın, 2016;Şener, 2008). Defectivity is not only limited to C 0 head, but it can also be attributed to the Case and Tense features following Pesetsky & Torrego (2007).…”

“…(37) I believe [him to be an idiot] As for Turkish ECM clauses, Özgen & Aydın (2016) follow Şener (2008), and assume that ECM constructions and Finite Complement Clauses are structurally identical. Overt-Finite Complement Clauses are unambiguously CPs being headed by an overt complementizer (i.e, diye), and null-Finite Complement Clauses also project a CP, but the C 0 head of their CP is not morphologically realized.…”