Loading...
Publication Date
2020
Start Date
14-11-2020 10:40 AM
End Date
14-11-2020 11:00 AM
Description
Studies on Turkish bare direct objects (BDOs), objects lacking overt accusative markers, mostly agree that Turkish BDOs are in some relationship with the verb, however, the hypotheses for the type of relationship are inconsistent. In Turkish, underived modifiers like kötü “bad” function as adjectives if they precede a noun, and as adverbs if they precede a verb (Taylan, 1984).
(1) a. Mehmet kötü araba-yı kullanı-yor. Mehmet bad car-ACC use-PRES “Mehmet drives the bad car.”
b. Mehmet kötü araba kullanı-yor. Mehmet bad car use-PRES “Mehmet drives badly.” Or “Mehmet drives bad cars.”
(1b) shows that kötü can function as an adverb. This suggests that BDO araba can incorporate into the verb (Kornfilt, 1994; Öztürk, 2005). Kamali (2015) concludes that lack of overt case in BDOs is due to a weak accusative feature, which leads to either pseudo-incorporation or an indefinite reading of BDOs. The strongest evidence for these analyses comes from sentences like (1b).
Karimi (2005) proposes that definite objects in Persian must move higher in VPs to check [+definite] feature — Two-Object-Position Hypothesis (TOPH). Adopting TOPH for Turkish, I suggest that objects with strong-ACC features move higher in VPs (2), while objects with weak-ACC features stay in their original position, between the adverb and the verb (1b), allowing kötü function as an adverb.
(2) Mehmet [araba-yı]i kötü ti kullanı-yor. Mehmet car-ACC bad use-PRES “Mehmet drives the car badly.”
Applying TOPH to Turkish, my paper suggests that sentences in (1) are expected and an incorporation analysis is not conceptually necessary.
See full abstract linked below.
Video transcript
v2mACOL2020_Bare_Objects.pdf (451 kB)
Presentation slides
Oguz-mACOL2020-abstract.pdf (147 kB)
Full abstract
Movement of Turkish Bare Direct Objects Motivated by Strong Accusative Case Feature
Studies on Turkish bare direct objects (BDOs), objects lacking overt accusative markers, mostly agree that Turkish BDOs are in some relationship with the verb, however, the hypotheses for the type of relationship are inconsistent. In Turkish, underived modifiers like kötü “bad” function as adjectives if they precede a noun, and as adverbs if they precede a verb (Taylan, 1984).
(1) a. Mehmet kötü araba-yı kullanı-yor. Mehmet bad car-ACC use-PRES “Mehmet drives the bad car.”
b. Mehmet kötü araba kullanı-yor. Mehmet bad car use-PRES “Mehmet drives badly.” Or “Mehmet drives bad cars.”
(1b) shows that kötü can function as an adverb. This suggests that BDO araba can incorporate into the verb (Kornfilt, 1994; Öztürk, 2005). Kamali (2015) concludes that lack of overt case in BDOs is due to a weak accusative feature, which leads to either pseudo-incorporation or an indefinite reading of BDOs. The strongest evidence for these analyses comes from sentences like (1b).
Karimi (2005) proposes that definite objects in Persian must move higher in VPs to check [+definite] feature — Two-Object-Position Hypothesis (TOPH). Adopting TOPH for Turkish, I suggest that objects with strong-ACC features move higher in VPs (2), while objects with weak-ACC features stay in their original position, between the adverb and the verb (1b), allowing kötü function as an adverb.
(2) Mehmet [araba-yı]i kötü ti kullanı-yor. Mehmet car-ACC bad use-PRES “Mehmet drives the car badly.”
Applying TOPH to Turkish, my paper suggests that sentences in (1) are expected and an incorporation analysis is not conceptually necessary.
See full abstract linked below.