Systematic restrictions exhibited by so–called ‘finite complement clauses’ (FCCs) in Turk- ish follow from the fact that these clauses are in fact embedded root clauses (ERCs). These
ERCs are shown to be assertions, introducing new information into the discourse. They share core features with their counterparts in other languages, notably V2 in Germanic. It was further demonstrated that the discourse conditions, morphological marking and structural distribution of ERCs mirror those of Bare Object NPs (BONPs) in the language: Turkish ERCs, much like BONPs, are non-presuppositional, do not have an accusative case marker and are exclusively within the nuclear scope of the quantification structure. Finally, under the proposed analysis, accusative-marked subjects that may occur in such ERCs receive a natural explanation: such subjects are topical or backgrounded elements, and are thus lo- cated within the restriction clause, outside of their originating ERC. The accusative marking is the combined result of their new structural position of the matrix verb’s object on the one hand, and their presuppositionality on the other. Given that the movement of the subject of ERCs into the restriction clause is motivated for reasons of information structure and not for reasons of Case, the questions of whether Turkish ERCs are finite or not does not even arise. In other words, there is no need to make the further assumption that Turkish finiteness is determined by Agr features (which are optional in accusative-marked ERCs to begin with), as the lack of Case is not what motivates the movement of ERC subject to move from the nuclear scope into the restrictive clause.
CHAPTER 4
AN ANALYSIS OF NOMINALIZED EMBEDDED CLAUSES IN TURKISH
4.1
Introduction
So far we have looked at two clause types in Turkish, namely clauses introduced by the element ki (see Chapter 2) and clauses referred to as ‘fully finite and verbal’ (see Chapter 3). It was argued that both of these clauses are root clauses.
Ki-Clause (1) Tu˘g¸ce-Ø Tu˘g¸ce-Nom san-ıyor-Ø believe-Prog-3Sg ki ki [ [ biz-Ø we-Nom Ankara-ya Ankara-Dat git-ti-k go-Past-1Pl ]. ] ‘Tu˘g¸ce believes that we went to Ankara.’
• Analysis: Paratactically connected Root Clause, where the complementizer is a coor- dinator of category C.
Fully Finite, Verbal Clause
(2) Tu˘g¸ce-Ø Tu˘g¸ce-Nom [ [ biz-Ø we-Nom Ankara-ya Ankara-Dat git-ti-k go-Past-1Pl ] ] san-ıyor-Ø. believe-Prog-3Sg ‘Tu˘g¸ce believes that we went to Ankara.’
• Analysis: Embedded Root Clause (ERC), which has similar properties to the German embedded V2-clause. Analogous to these are also English embedded clauses that have undergone so-called ‘complementizer deletion.’
First, it was shown that ki -clauses are paratactically connected root clauses, where ki is analyzed as a coordinator of category C. This new analysis of ki is especially an important one, as the common view in the literature is that the borrowed element ki is a subordinator of the Indo-European type, similar to the English complementizer that (see G¨oksel and Kerslake (2005), Kornfilt (1997, 2005a), among others), thus, giving rise to the widely-held, but nevertheless wrong assumption that Turkish does have an instance of Indo-European style complementation.
Next, it was shown that clauses that are referred to as (fully) finite, verbal embedded clauses in Turkish are, in fact, simply embedded root clauses (ERCs), introducing new information into the discourse. The peculiar properties of such clauses were shown to be due to the fact that that such clauses are simple ERCs, and that these properties did not follow from their “(fully) finiteness”, nor their “verbalness”. What both ki clauses and so- called “(fully) finite, verbal clauses” have in common is the fact that they are both roots and carry assertion. Furthermore, neither the ki clause nor the ERC is the most frequently occurring embedded clause type in Turkish. The relatively infrequent occurence of embedded root clauses is also attested in other languages (cf., that -deletion contexts in English, V2 embedded clauses in German, paratactic root clauses in Frisian, among others). Regarding English and German, the most frequently occuring clauses are the ones that are introduced by a complementizer.1 Turkish, however, does not have a complementizer akin to English that
or German dass, at least, not on the surface. This begs the question as to what function complementizers such as that or German dass carry out. More importantly, how is this particular function carried out in Turkish, a language that has no complementizer akin to 1Most, if not all verbs can take a clause that has a complementizer, but only a restricted set of verbs
can take clauses with no complementizer in both English and German, and presumably, in other languages as well.
that or German dass? Does the lack of a complementizer mean that the function carried out by that complementizer is also absent? Is the lack of a complementizer compensated for by other means? I argue that it is. In this chapter I argue that Turkish nominalized embedded clauses, despite being nominalized and not having a complementizer of the Indo-European type, exhibit some parallels with embedded clauses headed by a complementizer such as that or German dass.2 In particular, it is argued that both nominalized embedded clauses in Turkish and embedded clauses headed by a complementizer such as that are CPs, where C has a nominal feature. This nominal feature in C in Turkish manifests itself through nominalization, whereas in English it surfaces as the complementizer that, which is derived from a demonstrative, a nominal category.