Affiliation:
1. Department of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
2. Faculty of Education and Arts Nord University Bodø Norway
Abstract
AbstractWe use fieldwork data about cross‐clausal scrambling in Balkar (Turkic) to clarify the nature of movement and its constraints. Balkar has a variety of embedded nominalized clauses, with different subject cases and possibilities for movement. Clauses with nominative (nom) subjects permit cross‐clausal object extraction but not subject extraction. In contrast, clauses with accusative subjects permit both such movements, although movement of the subject is required for object extraction. Finally, clauses with genitive subjects permit only subject extraction. We argue that these facts provide evidence for the following proposals: (i) multiple specifiers are usually possible provided that tucking‐in applies; (ii) the highest of a phase's multiple specifiers is privileged for accessibility; (iii) movement is constrained by anti‐locality (a ban on short movements); and (iv) Balkar DPs do not permit multiple specifiers. These factors are intertwined informatively in Balkar, and are supported by additional facts about possessors, binding, and covert movement.
Reference75 articles.
1. Phases
2. Successive Cyclicity in DPs: Evidence from Mongolian Nominalized Clauses
3. Asarina A.2011.Case in Uyghur and beyondMIT Doctoral Dissertation.
4. Syntax and Semantics of Genitive Subject Case in Turkish;Aygen G.;California Linguistic Notes XXXII,2007