A complexity hierarchy-based solution to the clausal subject puzzle in Turkish

This paper presents a novel analysis of subordinate clause structure in Turkish, focusing on subordinations formed by the following three suffixes: the infinitival -mA(K) with tenseless and (ir)realis usages, and -DIK/ -(y)ACAK with a (non)future temporal specification. We present a classification aligning each form on the Implicational Complementation Hierarchy (ICH) proposed in Wurmbrand and Lohninger (2020), which provides a solution for the subject puzzle observed with these clauses: only infinitival -mA(K) clauses with their (ir)realis use are compatible with being the subject of a transitive verb. We propose that (ir)realis infinitival clauses belong to the situation class in the ICH, and that this middle class is of the ideal semantic complexity and syntactic size for a clausal subject in Turkish.

Infinitival Clauses in the Romance Languages

“Infinitival clauses” are constructions with a clausal status whose predicate is an infinitive. Romance infinitive clauses are mostly dependent clauses and can be divided into the following types: argumental infinitival clauses (such as subject and object clauses, the latter also including indirect interrogatives), predicative infinitival clauses, infinitival adjunct clauses, infinitival relative clauses, and nominalized infinitive clauses (with a determiner). More rarely, they appear as independent (main) clauses (root infinitival clauses) of different types, which usually have a marked character. Whereas infinitival adjunct clauses are generally preceded by prepositions, which can be argued to be outside the infinitival clause proper (i.e., the clause is part of a prepositional phrase), Romance argumental infinitive clauses are often introduced by complementizers that are diachronically derived from prepositions, mostly de/di and a/à. In most Romance languages, the infinitive itself is morphologically marked by an ending containing the morpheme {r} but lacks tense and agreement morphemes. However, some Romance languages have developed an infinitive that can be inflected for subject agreement (which is found in Portuguese, Galician, and Sardinian and also attested in Old Neapolitan). Romance languages share the property of English and other languages to leave the subject of infinitive clauses unexpressed (subject/object control, arbitrary control, and optional control) and also have raising and accusative-and-infinitive constructions. A special property of many Romance languages is the possibility of overtly expressing a nominative subject in infinitival clauses, mostly in postverbal position. The tense of the infinitive clause is usually interpreted as simultaneous or anterior to that of the matrix clause, but some matrix predicates and infinitive constructions trigger a posteriority/future reading. In addition, some Romance infinitive clauses are susceptible to constraints concerning aspect and modality.

Coordenações assimétricas no português antigo

This paper takes into account some asymmetries found in Medieval Portuguese coordinate structures containing infinitival clauses. These are cases of coordination of a non-inflected infinitive with an inflected one and cases of apparent extraction of an element from the first clause of a coordinate structure. Both asymmetries can be eliminated if we assume that the coordination takes place at a higher structural level than that of the infinitival clauses; however, this solution entails that we have to postulate a gap in the second conjunct with the ellipsis of some elements (and/or the presence of some abstract elements) recoverable on the basis of elements expressed in the first conjunct. We show that only this more abstract hypothesis can explain in a direct manner the data examined in this work.

Logophoric Centers as Antecedents of NOC PRO: Evidence from Turkish Subject Infinitives

This paper questions the mechanism behind the control structure observed in subject infinitival clauses in Turkish. After comparing the main points of the proposals in the Movement Theory of Control in Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2010), pragmatics based Non-Obligatory Control analysis in Landau (2013), and the UPro Approach in McFadden and Sundaresan (2016), I conclude with the claim that these are logophoric center sensitive NOC structures.

Anaphor binding

Scandinavian has a reflexive pronoun and a reflexive possessive for the 3rd person, and a reciprocal pronoun for all persons. Regular binding domains are finite and non-finite clauses, small clauses, and noun phrases with a verbal content and a genitive ‘agent’. There are also less expected binding relations within NPs, possibly involving an invisible binder. Within VP an indirect object may bind a direct object. Even non-c-commanding binders within VP do exist. Non-local binding into small clauses and infinitival clauses is frequent. Some varieties, especially Norwegian, also allow long distance binding, i.e. binding into finite subordinate clauses. At this point, there is a great deal of variation in acceptability, and definite rules are hard to identify.

Subordinate clauses

In subordinate clauses, the C position is occupied by a complementizer word, which may be null. The finite verb stays in V. SpecCP is either empty or occupied by a wh-word, or by some other element indicating its semantic function. Nominal clauses are finite or non-finite. Finite nominal clauses are declarative or interrogative. Declarative nominal clauses may under specific circumstances have main clause word order (‘embedded V2’). Infinitival clauses are marked by an infinitive marker, which is either in C (Swedish), or immediately above V (Danish). Norwegian has both options. Relative clauses comprise several different types; clauses with a relativized nominal argument are mostly introduced by a complementizer; adverbial relative clauses relativize a locative or temporal phrase, with or without a complementizer; comparative clauses relativize a degree or identity. Under hard-to-define circumstances depending on language and region, subordinate clauses allow extraction of phrases up into the matrix clause.

Swahili coordinated infinitives and non-canonical case-marking

Swahili exhibits a construction where a tensed and an infinitival clause are coordinated. This is an example of “unbalanced” coordination insofar as one verb is tensed and the other is not. Furthermore, the licensing of an overt subject in the infinitival clause problematizes Case Theory because infinitival clauses do not assign nominative case. The construction is also puzzling because although it bears some characteristics of pseudo-coordination it also has properties reminiscent of true coordination. Despite the theoretical questions this raises, the construction has not been adequately addressed in the literature: to our knowledge, this paper presents the first-ever theoretical analysis of this construction. We argue that the conjuncts are at least coordinated AgrSPs (the subject agreement phrase) dominated by TP (the tense phrase) which licenses case-marked subjects in both conjuncts.