NLD and CASE1

Betul Erbasi

Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

This paper investigates the omission/extractability behavior of different case markers in NLD in Turkish. The

basic claim is that the more semantic connotation a case marker bears, the more „omittable (or the freer)‟ it is

while the more structural dependency of a case marker means the less „ommitability (or less freedom)‟. We also

show that prosodic constraints rank higher in Turkish than syntactic ones based on how NLD behaves in

different CP types. Besides, it seems that the prosodic system of Turkish differentiates between pronouns and

proper names, a conclusion reached based on the patterns in NLD.

Keywords: Non-local Doubling, NLD, Case Markers, Constraint Ranking, Pronouns

0. Introduction

This paper discusses the differing extractability/omission2 behavior of different case markers in

Non-local doubling (NLD) in Turkish, a doubling process applying at the sentence level. „Omission‟

means whether the case marker can be deleted when the stem it has attached to is doubled through

NLD, in which case we would say „it is omitted/extracted/deleted‟. The investigated case markers are

„Structural Case (SC)‟, including Accusative (Acc), Genitive (Gen) and Dative (in double object

constructions (Larson, 1988)); Inherent Case (IC), including case markers associated with certain

verbs and Oblique Case (OC) which is the case type adjuncts take on. We take SCs to be purely

structural –that is, they do not have a semantic connotation but exist due to structural requirements-

and we take OCs to be purely semantic. ICs are somewhat more mysterious. They probably had

semantic beginnings but today they are associated with certain verbs and we do not know their

semantic roots. However, since ICs patterns with OCs in NLD, we are convinced that they are at least

more semantic than structural.

1. NLD in Turkish

NLD is a doubling process that applies at sentence level, evidenced by the fact that they can apply

to questions (hence CPs) (Göksel et al, 2013). Göksel et al. (2013) defines NLD as „a type of adverb

formation process that is sensitive to morphosyntactic and prosodic structures (p. 2)‟. It takes one or

more elements including and preceding the Focus head (F)3 (Göksel et al, 2013) or only F (Demircan,

1 I thank my instructor and advisor Aslı Göksel for her helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. I also thank TÜBİTAK for

financial support it has provided me with during my MA studies. 2 We refer to „extractiblity/omission‟ simply as „omission‟ in most cases from now on.

3 We do not make a distinction between contrastive focus and neutral focus here since both seem to play a similar role with respect to NLD.

See Göksel & Özsoy (2003) for arguments in favor of a non-distinction between contrastive and neutral focus.

1990) and copies it to the end of the sentence. The copied element is called a duplicandum based on

Göksel et al (2013) here. It is not possible to copy an element that follows the F (1d-1e).

1. a. Ayşe [Faraba] almış, araba.

Ayşe car buy-reported past, car.

„Apparently, it is a car that Ayşe bought‟

or

b. Ayşe [Faraba] almış, Ayşe. and c. Ayşe [Faraba] almış, Ayşe araba.

but

d. *Ayşe [Faraba] almış, almış. e. *Ayşe [Fdün] araba almış, araba.

The area before F is called the Focus Domain (FD) following Göksel et al. (2013) in this paper. We

will essentially assume that NLD is not as restrictive as Demircan (1990) assumes nor is it as free as in

Göksel et al. (2013). Though there may be other restrictions, we specifically look into the omission

behavior of the case that the duplicandum bears. The basic aim is to shed light on how case markers

differ in their omission behavior in NLD and what this difference tells us. The following are the

questions that guide us:

(i) Do all case markers behave the same in terms of omission in NLD?

(ii) If not, what is the difference? Where can the difference stem from?

(iii) What does this difference tell us theoretically?

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses some literature about the process. Section 3

presents the central proposal of the paper and Section 4 looks at the data from which the proposal has

developed. Section 5 presents a possible analysis, followed by the discussion of some not-so-

straightforward cases in Section 6. Lastly, Section 7 brings up some issues that remain unresolved in

the analysis presented.

2. NLD in Literature

Göksel et al. (2013): Göksel et al. (2013) is perhaps the only study that discusses NLD systematically

and in detail. They take NLD to be essentially an adverb formation process which serves to emphasize

whatever it doubles. They assume that no restriction exists for NLD and any element within FD and

any number of elements within that domain can do so. Nothing outside FD can be doubled. Following

are some examples from the article:

2. Ali [Fvazo-ya] çiçek-ler-i koy-du

Ali vase-Dat.flower-Pl.-Acc. put-Past

Possible Doubled Elements: Ali, vazoya (as well as both of these together)

Elements that cannot be doubled: *çiçekleri, *koydu

3. Ali vazoya çiçekleri [Fkoydu]

Possible Doubled Elements: Ali, vazoya, çiçekleri, koydu (as well as all of these together)

Elements that cannot be doubled: None

They also propose that the duplicandum attaches to CP (not the CP in the syntactic sense but “to

express the functional type that acts as the input to doubling (p. 20))” since it can follow a question

word or particle:

4. Nereye gid-iyor-sun, nereye

where go-Imper.-2.Sg.

„Hey, where are you going?‟

5. Eşref-i sev-iyor mu-sun, Eşref-i

Eşref-Acc. love-Imper. Qu-2.Sg.

„Do you love Eşref, then?‟

Demircan (1990): Demircan (1990) is not specifically focused on NLD but it refers to it at some

points. According to him, it is only F that can be doubled in an NLD. He states that this reduplication

process allows Turkish to differentiate between structures like those in (6a) and (6b):

6. a. Hasta hasta çalıştı (not an NLD)

sick sick work-ed

„S/he worked despite being sick.‟

b. Hasta çalıştı hasta (NLD)

„It was the sick person who worked.‟

3. Proposal

We propose that in non-F positions but within the FD, no case marker can be omitted. In F

position, on the other hand, an SC on a duplicandum cannot be omitted while IC and OC can. The

distinction between case types depends on the amount of semantic connotation they bear: the clearer a

meaning a case bears, the more extractable it is.

4. NLD and Case

In this section, we will first look into case omission in NLD in non-F positions, then on F. We

indicate the focused element in square brackets and these focused elements bear neutral focus in

neutral sentences (no contrastive stress), which is claimed to be the immediately preverbal position

(Taylan, 1984 and many following work). However, contrastive stress seems to make no difference for

NLD (see Footnote 3).

In non-F positions, none of the case markers can be omitted. That is, they have to be doubled with

every morpheme in them:

7. Ayşe-yi [Fdün] gör-dü-m Ayşeyi/*Ayşe (Structural Case-Accusative)

Ayşe-Acc. yesterday see-Past-1Sg

„It was Ayşe that I saw yesterday‟

8. Ayşe-ye [F kitab-ı] ver-di-m Ayşeye/*Ayşe (Structural Case-Dative)

Ayşe-Dative book-Acc. give-Past-1Sg

„It was Ayşe that I gave the book to.‟

9. Ayşe-ye okul-da [F kitab-ı] ver-di-m okulda/*okul(Oblique Case-Locative)

Ayşe-Dative school-Loc. book-Acc give-Past-1Sg

„It was at school that I gave the book to Ayşe.‟

10. Ayşe dolma-ya [Fher zaman] bayıl-ır dolmaya/*dolma (Inherent Case-Dative)

Ayşe dolma-Dative every time be fond of-Aor

„It is dolma (a Turkish meal) that Ayşe is always very fond of.‟

When it comes to doubling of F heads, the pattern changes:

11. [FKitab-ı] oku-du-m, kitabı/*kitap (Structural Case-Accusative)

book-Acc. read-Past-1.sg.

„It is the book that I read‟

12. Burası [FAhmet-in] ev-i, Ahmetin/*Ahmet (Structural Case-Genitive)

here Ahmet-Gen. house-Poss.

„Here is Ahmet‟s house (no one else‟s)‟

13. Kitab-ı Ayşe-ye ver-di-m Ayşeye/*Ayşe (Structural Case-Dative)

book-Acc. Ayşe-Dative give-Past-1Sg

„It is Ayşe that I gave the book to‟

14. [F Ankara-ya] git-ti-k, Ankaraya/Ankara (Oblique Case-Dative)

Ankara-Dat. go-Past.-1.pl.

„It is to Ankara that we went‟

15. Ayşe [Fdolma-ya] bayıl-ır dolmaya/dolma (Inherent Case-Dative)

Ayşe dolma-Dat. like a lot-Aor.

„Ayşe is very fond of dolma‟

A similar distinction is observed in complex clauses:

16. Sen kitab-ı [FAyşe-ye] ver-di-n diye duy-du-m Ayşeye/*Ayşe/kitabı/*kitap

(Structural Case)

you book-Acc. Ayşe-Dat. give-Past-2 sg. that hear-Past-1.sg.

„I heard that it is Ayşe that you gave the book to/that it is the book that you gave to Ayşe‟

17. Sen kitab-ı Ayşe-ye [Fokul-da] ver-di-n diye duy-du-m okulda/okul

(Oblique Case)

you book-Acc Ayşe-Dative school-Loc give-Past-2Sg that hear-Past-1Sg

„I heard that it was at school that you gave the book to Ayşe‟

18. Ayşe [Fdolma-ya] bayıl-ır diye duy-du-m dolmaya/dolma(Inherent Case)

Ayşe dolma-Dative be fond of-Aor that hear-Past-1Sg

„I heard that it is dolma that Ayşe is very fond of‟

The same restriction holds in multiple doubling:

19. ??Ayşeyi [Fokulda] gördüm Ayşeyi okul

20. *Ayşeye [Fkitabı] verdim Ayşeye kitap

In fact, differing behavior for the former two case types has been addressed before in the literature

(e.g., see Bošković, 2010 for Left-branch Extraction) and the Turkish data seems to support the

assumption: SC cannot be omitted in NLD while IC and OC can if the duplicandum is in F position.

One last crucial point is that extraction of Direct Objects (DO) is worse than Indirect Objects (IO),

although both are SCs, in double object verbs. (21) is worse than (22) although neither is totally

acceptable. The judgments in (21-22) are given in comparison to each other (i.e. it does not mean that

(21) is acceptable but only that it is more acceptable in comparison to (22)):

21. *[FKitab-ı] okudum, kitap

22. ??Kitabı [FAyşe-ye] verdim, Ayşe

5. A Possible Explanation

The main points of the data can be summarized in the following way:

(i) In non-F positions, all case markers are restrictive in that they cannot be omitted.

(ii) In F positions, SC cannot be omitted but IC and OC can.

(iii) Extraction of DO case (i.e., Accusative) is worse than the IO case (i.e., Dative).

Figure 1 is a possible schema to represent these observations:

IC/OC IO (Dat.) DO (Acc.) V P(ost)V(erbal)A(rea)

(and other adjuncts)

Minor Phrase‟‟ Minor Phrase‟ R (Root)-Minor Phrase

Figure 1: Representation of V and its arguments

Following Selkirk (2005), we assume that the prosodic Minor Phrase (MP) consists of the verb and

its arguments, which are case assigned by the verb. Since IC and OC behave similarly, we assume that

they are both in the same domain. In NLDs, full MP, with its sub-domains and their restrictions, can

be copied to the end of the sentence. That is why it is possible to copy more than one (maybe all)

arguments of the verb.

Figure 1 entails two main points: First, it explain why non-F positions pose huge restrictions on all

case markers: because the duplicandum has to cross the F, it must be strong enough to cross it. That is,

it has to keep everything it has or otherwise it becomes weak and cannot „beat‟ and cross F. That

explains why it is possible to apply NLD to elements in non-F positions when they have their case

markers while it is not the case when the case marker is deleted. Secondly, as one goes further from

the verb in Figure 1, the restriction on NLD gets weaker (if the duplicandum is in F). We will

elaborate on this in this section.

Now, let us look into the properties of the sub-domains:

5.1. The Properties of Each Domain

R-Minor Phrase is the domain for the closest argument of the verb, the DO, which bears Accusative

case. It is the most structural domain, and the most restrictive. The case assigned to this domain (i.e.,

Accusative Case) is purely structural and it has no semantic connotation. It just comes out as a result

of direct object-verb relations.

Minor Phrase‟, less restrictive than R-Minor Phrase, is the domain for the IO, marked with Dative

case. Dative Case is normally used to indicate goals or destination in Turkish:

23. Park-a yürü-dü-m

park-Dat. walk-Past-1.sg

„I walked to the park.‟

Thus, though assumed to be structural here based on Larson (1988), Dative Case has some sort

of semantic connotation. Therefore, Dative case on IO is both structural and semantic. Thus, it is

located in Minor Phrase‟, the middle area.

The least restrictive area in Figure 1 is Minor Phrase‟‟. It is the domain for the most semantically

related elements: adjuncts and OCs (and ICs), both of which modify the verb depending on the context

the sentence appears. They do not have a structural relation to the verb and the OCs denote semantic

notions such as goal and source. (24), (25) and (26) below exemplify this:

24. Ali İstanbul-a kaç-tı

Ali İstanbul-Dat. escape-Past

„Ali escaped to Istanbul.‟

25. Ali İstanbul-da kaç-tı

Ali İstanbul-Loc. escape-Past

„Ali escaped in Istanbul.‟

26. Ali İstanbul-dan kaç-tı

Ali İstanbul-Abl. escape-Past

„Ali escaped from Istanbul.‟

Now that the above sentences share all items but the case marker, we are forced to say that the verb

does not select these cases syntactically, but they are there for semantic reasons, resulting in the

interpretation differences. That we can use these case markers with other verbs to give the same

meanings as above provides further support for this point:

27. Ali park-a/park-ta/park-tan yürü-dü

Ali park-Dat./park-Loc./park-Abl. Walk-Past

„Ali walked to/in/from the park.‟

The difficult case is ICs in Minor Phrase‟‟. ICs seem to depend on their verb since they are selected

by it but they also pattern with OCs, which are actually not selected lexically by the verb, in NLD.

Hence, we can assume that this dependence is a semantic dependence rather than a structural one,

hence allowing the freedom of omission for ICs in NLD. This point requires further work, especially a

historical linguistic one so that we can see whether ICs truly have semantic roots (see Woolford (2006)

for a discussion of Inherent Case).

We conclude from the above discussion that from among arguments and adjuncts of a verb, the

more semantically related a case a linguistic element bears, the freer the case is to be omitted or not

and the more syntactically related a case is, the more restricted it is to the position it is generated in.

This also implies that the semantic part of the language is freer compared to the structural part,

pointing to a difference in the domains that these parts extend over.

6. Problematic Cases

6.1. Different Complementizer Types

In this section, we will investigate the differences between Complementizer Types in Turkish.

We will use IO as a testing point since only IO has the option of being extractable or not. SC can never

be omitted anyway and adjuncts are almost totally free to be kept or omitted. Therefore, these will not

help us with this distinction between complementizer types.

The two most common complementizers in Turkish behave differently with respect to NLD:

diye does not allow IO to be doubled while the same process applied in –DIk4 complementizer clauses

fares better results (although both are somewhat odd):

28. Sen kitab-ı [FAyşe-ye] ver-di-n diye duy-du-m Ayşeye/*Ayşe

You book-Acc. Ayşe-Dat. give-Past-2 sg. that hear-Past-1.sg.

„I heard that it is Ayşe that you gave the book to‟

29. Senin kitabı [FAyşeye] verdiğini duydum Ayşeye/??Ayşe

30. Kitab-ı [F masa-ya] koy-du-m diye hatırl-ıyor-um masaya/*masa

book-Acc. table-Dat. put-Past-1.sg. that remember-Imperf.-1.sg

„I remember having put the book on the table (and nowhere else)‟

31. Kitab-ı [F masa-ya] koy-duğ-um-u hatırl-ıyor-um masaya/??masa

The relative clause marker –An seems to pattern with –DIk clauses:

4 I assume the –K in –DIK is a C head, following Kural (1993).

32. Kitab-ı Ayşe-ye ver-en adam-ı gör-dü-m Ayşeye/??Ayşe

book-Acc. Ayşe-Dat. give-RC man-Acc. see-Past-1. Sg.

„I saw the man who gave the book to Ayşe (and no one else)‟

Now, let us look at why this pattern could be the case:

The first difference between diye and –DIk/-An clause is mostly phonological (note that they are all

CP syntactically): –DIk and relative clause marker –An are subject to (morpho-)phonological

alternations that Turkish: Both undergo vowel harmony, -DIk additionally undergoes consonant

harmony and k~Ø alternation. This property of theirs differentiates them from diye, which does not

form a phonological unit with a root or a stem but is itself one.

The question is: Can this phonological/prosodic unity feature be the reason for the differing

behavior? The answer seems to be affirmative. Note that diye, -DIK and –An are all C heads. But the

latter two are not prosodic heads while the first one is. This shows us that Turkish cares about prosodic

structure more than it does for syntactic structure. This is similar to what Selkirk (2011) states after

discussing what various languages do with respect to syntax-prosody mapping and the influence of

phonology on this mapping that:

“Rather, a simple theory of the correspondence between syntactic constituency

and prosodic constituency posits a set of universal Match correspondence constraints.

These interact in language-particular rankings with phonological constraints of the sort

reviewed above to produce a prosodic constituent structure for a sentence which matches

up, to greater or lesser degree according to that constraint ranking, with the syntactic

constituent structure of the sentence. (p. 47)”

She adopts Optimality Theory and claims that languages rank constraints in a specific order and

these interaction processes, as a whole, give the final prosodic constituent. Phonological constraints

may rank higher in some languages than syntactic ones like Xitsonga, Italian while syntactic domains

may rank higher than phonological constraints in others like ChiMwiini, German. Hence, she proposes

a typology of constraint ranking. It seems that Turkish patterns with Xitsonga and Italian in NLDs. If

that holds for every structure in Turkish is a matter for further research.

6.2. Pronouns versus Proper Names

Pronouns are not as readily available as proper names for doubling:

33. Kitabı [Fsenden] aldım senden/*sen

34. Kitabı [FAyşeden] aldım Ayşeden/?Ayşe

Certain properties of pronouns are discussed in Kratzer, A & Selkirk, E. (2007): They cannot

receive stress. In their analysis, they argue for The Highest Phrase Condition on prosodic spellout:

The Highest Phrase Condition on prosodic spellout– stress-based version

Assign phrase stress within the highest phrase within the spellout domain. (p. 105)

However, not when the highest phrase is a pronoun. If the highest phrase is a pronoun, the stress

falls on the next highest constituent (p. 110). Thus, they state that “The ineligibility of pronouns

to receive phrase stress must be specified in the grammar (p.110)”.Likewise, whether a DP/NP is a

pronoun also has to be specified in the grammar so that we observe the different behavior by pronouns

and proper names in NLD. It may be that pronouns are somehow „weaker‟ than proper names so that

they need the support of the case marker. Proper names are freer probably because they bear full

content (i.e., a clear and specific referent in the real world) and have clearer semantic association

(remember the main proposal of the paper: the more semantic meaning, the more extractability).

7. Further Issues

We have drawn a correlation between having structural or semantic association and

(non-)extractability. The reasons for this correlation between meaning, structure and restrictiveness

call for an explanation. It could be related to syntactic/prosodic/semantic domains which the case

markers are “controlled by”, that is, if a case is structural, it is basically controlled by syntactic

domains or if it has semantic association, it is controlled by semantic units. The role of prosody here

needs to be studied in more depth since prosody has relations with different parts of the language (see

Nespor, M. & Vogel, I., 1986, 2007; Selkirk, 1986 and subsequent work).

CONCLUSION

This paper has looked into the interaction of NLD and different case types, which had previously

been pointed out in the literature (Bošković, 2010). The data shows that Structural Case (SC) is the

most restrictive case, while Inherent Case (IC) and Oblique Case (OC) allows for more freedom in that

they can either surface in NLDs or not. This distinction is relevant for doubling the Focus Head (F) but

not for other elements in the Focus Domain (FD). In non-F positions, all case markers display

restrictive behavior. There seems to be a correlation between semantic association and extractability:

the more semantic association a case has, the more „omittable‟ it is. Purely semantic cases can be

omitted as in adjuncts/OCs/ICs whereas purely structural cases which lack meaning are „non-

omittable‟. The case assigned to the Indirect Object (i.e., Dative) has mixed behavior since it is both

structural (Larson, 1988) and has the semantics of a goal/destination. Syntactic islands (specifically

CP in this paper) also play a role: They do not allow omission of the case marker at all, only if they do

not form a phonological unit with the stem they attach to. If a C head is bound to the stem by various

processes like vowel/consonant harmony or k~Ø alternation (as in –DIk clauses and relative clauses

formed with –An), then it does not hinder omission and behaves like a root clause. Pronouns do not

allow omission of case markers, either. That is probably due to their weak nature pointed out in the

literature (Kratzer, A. & Selkirk, E., 2007) and they are dependent on the case marker.

REFERENCES

Aoun, J. and Li, Y.- H.A. (1993a). Wh-elements in situ-syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry, 24.

Demircan, Ö. (1990). Türkçe‟de ikilemenin özüne doğru. Dilbilim, 9

Bošković, Z. (2010). Phases beyond clauses. GLOW 33, University of Wrocław, Poland (by invitation).

Göksel, A., B. Kabak and A. Revithiadou. (2013). Prosodically constrained non-local doubling. The Linguistic

Review, 30(2), p.185-214.

Kimper, W. (2008). Syntactic reduplication and the spellout of movement chains. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Kratzer, A. & Selkirk, E. (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs The Linguistic

Review 24, 93-135. Special issue on Prosodic Phrasing, ed. by Sonia Frota and Pilar Prieto.

Kural, M. (1993). V-to(I-to)-C in Turkish. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics (edited by Filippo Beggelli and Murat Kural), 11.

Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–392.

Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford University Press, p. 235-236.

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.

Selkirk, E. (2005). Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English, in S. Frota, M. Vigario, and M.-J. Freitas,

eds. Prosodies. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Also in S. Kawahara, ed., Papers in Prosody, UMOP 30, 2005.

-------------. (2011). The Syntax-Phonology Interface, in J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, and A. Yu, eds., The Handbook

of Phonological Theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sigurðsson, H. A. (2003). Case: abstract vs. morphological. In New Perspectives on Case Theory, ed. Ellen

Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 223–268. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37,1.