COURSE UNIT TITLE

: SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS

Description of Individual Course Units

Course Unit Code Course Unit Title Type Of Course D U L ECTS
DIL 6083 SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS ELECTIVE 3 0 0 9

Offered By

General Linguistics

Level of Course Unit

Third Cycle Programmes (Doctorate Degree)

Course Coordinator

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MURAT ÖZGEN

Offered to

General Linguistics

Course Objective

This course aims at providing information about the main topics and problems in the current literature on the Minimalist Program and the Phase Theory and discussing these topics and problems.

Learning Outcomes of the Course Unit

1   Identifying AGREE and licencing which are the basic devices of the syntactic theory
2   Discussing and ctiricising the debates in the literature on these devices
3   Discussing and criticising the studies on these devices in Turkish
4   Describing the concept of "scrambling"
5   Discussing the literature on scrambling, with regard to the studies on Turkish
6   Writing an original research paper on the topics discussed

Mode of Delivery

Face -to- Face

Prerequisites and Co-requisites

None

Recomended Optional Programme Components

None

Course Contents

Week Subject Description
1 Introduction: The morphological/syntactic realisations of agreement in Turkish
2 Agreement and Case with regard to Syntactic Relations: INFL, AGREEMENT and Government Spec-Head relation CONCORDANCE
3 Studies on Agreement and Case in Turkish: A general introduction
4 Studies on Agreement and Case in Turkish: Nominal subjects and agreement in Turkish
5 Studies on Agreement and Case in Turkish: Genitive subjects and agreement in Turkish
6 Studies on Agreement and Case in Turkish: Accusative subjects and agreement in Turkish
7 Studies on Agreement and Case in Turkish: Phi Theory and agreement in copulated sentences
8 General Review
9 Scrambling: Introduction, identifying the phenomenon
10 Scrambling approaches: base-derivation Approach, Movement Approach, Two-typed movement suggestions
11 Phenomenon related to scrambling: Specificity and scrabling, Object-shifting
12 Scrambling in Turkish - I
13 Scrambling in Turkish - II
14 Scrambling in Turkish - IIII

Recomended or Required Reading

Aygen, G. (2000). Extractability and the nominative case feature on tense. In S. Özsoy,
D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, E. E. Erguvanlı-Taylan, & A. Aksu-Koç, in Turkish
linguistics: proceedings of the 10th. international conference in Turkish linguistics
(pp. 81-94). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Aygen, G. (2002). Finiteness, case and clausal architecture. Unpublished PhD
dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Boecx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2004). Putting phases into perspective. Budapest: TILT
2004.
Bo kovic, . (1997). The syntax of non-finite complementation: An economy approach.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomksy, N. (2006). Approaching UG from below. Ms.: MIT.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, &
J. U. (eds.), Step by step (pp. 89-156). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in
language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. A. B. (ed.) icinde, Structures and
Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). On Phases. Ms.: MIT.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads A Crosslinguistic Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1978). The function of word order in Turkish. California:
University of California Press.
Fukui, N. (1993). Parameters and Optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24 , 399 420.
Gallego, A. J. (2010). Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
George, L., & Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. F. H. (ed.)
icinde, Binding and Filtering (s. 105-128). London: Croomhellm Ltd.
Grohmann, K. K. (2009). Explorations of Phase Theory: features and arguments. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Harves, S. (2002). Where have all the Phases gone (Non-)defective categories and Case
alternations in Russian. J. T. (ed.) icinde, In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics
10, the Second Ann Arbor Meeting (s. 97-118). Michigan: Michigan Press.
Işsever, S. (2006). Towards a Unified Account of Clause-initial Scrambling in Turkish:
a feature analysis. In Turkic Languages 11: 1 (pp. 93-123). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Kidwai, A. (2000). XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-
Urdu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. [Manuscript, ver.1. UCLA.] .
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1971). Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like
also, even, or only, illustrating certain manners in which formal systems are employed
as auxiliary devices in linguistic descriptions: Part 2. Papers in Japanese Linguistics
11 , 157 202.

Planned Learning Activities and Teaching Methods

Presentation
Tutoring via examples and discussion
Question and Answer

Assessment Methods

SORTING NUMBER SHORT CODE LONG CODE FORMULA
1 MTE MIDTERM EXAM
2 STT TERM WORK (SEMESTER)
3 FIN FINAL EXAM
4 FCG FINAL COURSE GRADE MTE * 0.30 + STT * 0.30 + FIN* 0.40
5 RST RESIT
6 FCGR FINAL COURSE GRADE (RESIT) MTE * 0.30 + STT * 0.30 + RST* 0.40


*** Resit Exam is Not Administered in Institutions Where Resit is not Applicable.

Further Notes About Assessment Methods

None

Assessment Criteria

LO 1-6 will be evaluated by the questions in the midterm and final exams and projects.

Language of Instruction

Turkish

Course Policies and Rules

80% class attendance is obligatory.
Absence from classes will not be considered as an excuse for late submission of the homework assignments/projects.
Cheating and plagiarism attempts in assignments and exams will be evaluated with a 0 (zero) grade.

Contact Details for the Lecturer(s)

To be announced.

Office Hours

Monday 09:00-12:00
Tuesday 09:00-12:00

Work Placement(s)

None

Workload Calculation

Activities Number Time (hours) Total Work Load (hours)
Lectures 14 3 42
Preparations before/after weekly lectures 13 6 78
Preparation for midterm exam 1 30 30
Preparation for final exam 1 40 40
Preparing assignments 1 30 30
Final 1 3 3
Midterm 1 3 3
TOTAL WORKLOAD (hours) 226

Contribution of Learning Outcomes to Programme Outcomes

PO/LOPO.1PO.2PO.3PO.4PO.5PO.6
LO.155
LO.255
LO.355
LO.455
LO.555
LO.655