Structural Parallelism in TP and DP: Case and Agreement in Azeri Turkish

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD student of Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj

2 Associate Professor, Department of English and Linguistics, University of Kurdistan,.

3 Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran

4 Assistant Professor of English literature, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj

5 Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a minimalist account of case and agreement within Azeri Turkish DPs. The DP-internal case and agreement in Azeri Turkish has direct bearing on the structural parallelism across syntactic projections of different categories.
In comparison to TP-internal agreement, DP-internal agreement has been less studied due to the limited empirical domain in which the possessed-possessor agreement is attested cross-linguistically. However, in languages of the Finno-Ugric family, including Finnish and Hungarian, and the Turkic sub-family such Turkish and Sakha, agreement of the head noun with the possessor obtains in a robust fashion.
Azeri Turkish, also called Azerbaijani, a language of the Oghuz branch of Turkic, spoken partly in Iran, displays possessed-possessor agreement within DPs: ....
References to the original article
 

Keywords

References

  1. bney, S.  (1987). The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.
  2. Adger, D., & Svenonius, P. (2011). Features in Minimalist Syntax. In: C. Boeckx (ed.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 1, 27-51.
  3. Arregi, K.,& Pietraszko, A. (to appear). The ups and downs of head displacement. Linguistic Inquiry, retrieved at https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004096.
  4. Baker, M. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Baker. M. (2015). Case: Its Principles and Parameters. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Berwick, R., Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us? Language and Evolution. MIT Press. MA.
  7. Camacho. J. (2013). Null Subjects. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.) Reading in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham: Ginn.
  9. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
  10. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  11. Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of Projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
  12. Darzi, A., Anoosheh, M. (2010). The Main Verb Movement in Persian A Minimalist Approach. ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research), 2(3), 21-55. [In Persian]
  13. Dékány, É. (2018). Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment. Glossa, 3(1), 65. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.316
  14. Embick, D., R., Noyer. 2001. Movement Operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555–595.
  15. Haghbin, F., Farkhondeh, S. (2013). A study of Checking φ- features and Subjebt – Verb Agreement in Persian. Language Research, 3(2), 1-21. [In Persian]
  16. Harizanov, B., & Gribanova, V. (2019). Whither head movement? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37, 461–522.
  17. Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
  18. Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  19. Karimi, Y. (2017). Remarks on Ergativity and Phase Theory. Studia Linguistica 71(3), 241-265.
  20. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-movement in Syntax and Logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 609-665.
  21. Norris, M. (2017). Description and analyses of nominal concord (parts I–II). Language and Linguistics Compass 11.
  22. Pollock, J-Y. (1989). Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.
  23. Preminger, O. (2020). Functional Structure in the Noun Phrase: Revisiting Hebrew Nominals. Glossa (to appear).
  24. Ritter, E. (1991). Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew, in Rothstein, S. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Academic Press, New York, 37–62.
  25. Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 501–557.
  26. Svenonius, P.  (2019). Syntactic Features. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.179
  27. Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 13, Issue 41 - Serial Number 41
December 2021
Pages 301-324

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics