Abstract
The present study argues for different levels of definiteness in the nominal domain based on an analysis of two different kinds of possession phrases in Turkish. In line with related research (e.g. Campbell 1996, Haegeman & Ürögdi 2010 and Jimenez-Fernandez 2012, Zamparelli 2014), I argue that the more definite a possession phrase is in Turkish, the more structure it has. This extra structure also hosts a definiteness operator, which accounts for island-like properties of the more definite possession structures. The proposal can therefore account for interpretational and syntactic properties of different possession structures in Turkish. I also argue that agreement properties are also accounted for with this proposal, when coupled with the island-forming properties of agreement in Turkish (George & Kornfilt 1981). The current proposal then contributes to previous research on levels of definiteness and it does so by focusing on a type of determiner phrases that previous research on levels of definiteness did not focus on.
Highlights
Definiteness in nominal structures has been defined in various ways
This latter study argued that referentiality in DPs is due to an operator chain between SpecDP and the subject of the small clause formed by the predicate NP
The more definite elements are situated in higher projections in the DP, making more definite noun phrases have a bigger structure and causing island-like effects
Summary
Definiteness in nominal structures has been defined in various ways. For Russel (1905), a definite entity refers to a unique one whereas for Heim (1982), it refers to a familiar one. The distinction between definite and indefinite nouns has been shown to be structurally important in that definite noun phrases are more islandlike, as opposed to indefinite noun phrases (Fiengo & Higginbotham 1981, Diesing 1992, Bošković 2008, Haegeman & Ürögdi 2010 and Jimenez-Fernandez 2012) Another way the notion of definiteness is not so clear-cut is different layers of definiteness. This paper will discuss data from Turkish and show that there are different definite noun phrases: strongest ones and weaker ones. The latter is compatible with elements indicating indefiniteness and only the former has (strong) island properties. Both GPs and AFGs must be accusative-marked (4) whereas bare nouns are marked with it only if they are specific (accusative marks specificity in Turkish (von Heusinger & Kornfilt 2005) (compare (5) and (6)):
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
