Abstract
Core Functional Categories are defined to be v0, T0, C0. They differ in that T0 is not treated as a phase head, while C0 and v0 are assumed to be phase heads: 1) a) [+ phase]: C0, v(*). b) [- phase]: T0. These heads are assumed to bear uninterpretable φ-features. T0 forms a defective a domain unless it is selected by C0. In other words, if T0 is selected by the phase head C0, it starts bearing a full φ-feature set; otherwise, it cannot inherit the features from C0, which leads to a defective domain allowing exceptional case marking (henceforth, ECM). Accordingly, T0 cannot also delete the features of the goal it enters an agree relation. In this respect, the defective features are Case/T0 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 T0 is ruled out of this argumentation: 2) a) [+ [+/- defective]]: C0, v0. b) [- [+/- defective]]: T0. 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).
Highlights
As Chomsky (2001, 2004 & 2005) puts it, C0 and v0 are argued to be the phase heads
Richards (2007) follows a similar line with Gallego (2009), and argues that C0 and v0 have defective/complete counterparts, but T0 has not: (3) a. [+ [+/− defective]]: C0, v0 b. [− [+/− defective]]: T0. Along these lines of thought, the aim of this paper is to question whether it is possible that the phase is defect, even though the phase head is complete, and to seek an answer to the question as to whether all Core Functional Categories (CFCs), namely v0, T0 and C0, come into defective and complete versions
We argue that on the one hand, T is defective in ECM construction in Turkish as in (4b) despite the φ-complete C; on the other hand, ECM construction in Turkish as in (4a), both T0 and C0 are defective
Summary
As Chomsky (2001, 2004 & 2005) puts it, C0 and v0 are argued to be the phase heads. T0 is not defined as a phase head in his discussions: How to cite this paper: Özgen, M., & Aydın, Ö. (2016). All those heads are defined as Core Functional Categories (CFCs). Richards (2007) follows a similar line with Gallego (2009), and argues that C0 and v0 have defective/complete counterparts, but T0 has not: Along these lines of thought, the aim of this paper is to question whether it is possible that the phase is defect, even though the phase head is complete, and to seek an answer to the question as to whether all Core Functional Categories (CFCs), namely v0, T0 and C0, come into defective and complete versions. Bošković (1997), on the other hand, argues that the subject him raises from the embedded clause to the matrix clause in overt syntax in order to license its case feature via agreement with v0
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: 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.
