Based on data from Turkic languages (Turkish, Kazakh, Tuvan ), I will argue against the widely accepted claim (Hwang 1997, Kornfilt 1985) that the case on the subject is licensed either by the [+T] feature on T (in English type languages) or by the phi features on Tense or Agreement (in Turkish type languages). I will propose that In Turkic, case on the subject is licensed by neither the [+Tense] features nor the phi features on T, but by a case feature on C. I will provide evidence from the Nominative-Genitive Case alternation observed on the subject of complement and adjunct clauses in Turkic, both of which bear identical [T] and phi features, and account for the alternation by the difference in the internal and external syntax of dependent clauses and consequently, the nature of C in dependent and independent clauses.

Data in (1&2) illustrate Turkish dependent clauses that have identical surface form, except for the case on the subject. Interestingly, (1) is a complement clause and its subject bears Genitive Case; the one in (2) is an adjunct clause and its subject bears Nominative Case. The verbal predicate in both clauses is identical in form, and it bears a controversial morpheme -DIK , and the nominal agreement morpheme. Turkish has been argued to belong to the group of languages where the phi features on Tense or Agreement license the case on the subject: in this approach verbal agreement licenses nominative and nominal agreement licenses genitive case (Kornfilt 1985, George and Kornfilt 1981, Hwang 1997). Such an approach predicts genitive case in structures like (1&2), but the prediction is not attested.

In terms of the internal syntax of these clauses, I will argue that complement clauses are internally Relative Clauses in Turkish, whereas adjunct clauses are CPs with a lexically field C position. The word zaman/time is a head noun extracted from within the CP in (1), whereas it is a Complementizer at C in (2). Evidence from coordination test in (5) indicates that complement clauses in Turkish are Relative Clauses since they can be coordinated by other Relative Clauses, whereas adjunct clauses cannot (6). Further evidence from the Postverbal scrambling (PVS) tests in (3&4) indicate that V is at C in complement clauses like (1), whereas it is lower than C in adjunct clauses like (2). V at C prohibits adjunction to CP in (3), whereas when V is not at C (presumably at T) due to a lexically filled Comp in (2), adjunction to CP is allowed (Aygen 2000a,b).

The internal syntax of clauses identical in surface form is determined by their external syntax : Complements , selected by a lexical head are CPs, the head of which licenses Genitive on the subject. Adjuncts, not being selected, have C's that license nominative case just like root clauses. Root clauses in Turkic are like adjuncts in terms of not allowing V-to-T-to-C because they do not allow PVS, either, and bearing Nominative Case on their subject.

The prediction of this approach is that adjunct clauses such as PPs that select their complement should bear genitive case, whereas those which do not, such as adverbial clauses should bear nominative. This prediction is attested in a pair of adjuncts in Turkish, identical in form yet different in internal syntax. (7) and (8) are both adjunct clauses with differing internal syntax. (8) allows a head noun to be inserted, indicating that it has the structure of a RC (10), whereas (7) does not (9). The internal structure of (7) is

[ PP [ NP [ S-Gen V ] ] Prep ]

[ CP S-Nom V Comp ].

To conclude, I will argue that languages are parametrized in terms of what licenses the case on subject, and that the external syntax of clauses, that is being selected or not, is the defining phenomenon in licensing case on the subject in Turkic languages, whereas it is the [T] feature in English. I will also argue that Portuguese, Korean and Berber, which are grouped with Turkish and claimed to be languages where phi features license nominative case, should in fact be analyzed in terms of the external syntax of clauses, that is whether they are selected or not.

(1) Complement Clause

(2) Adjunct Clause

(3) P(ost)V(erbal)S(crambling)Test

(4) Ben- [Ali- ti kir-dig-i zaman] cam-ii gerceg-i bil-iyor-du-m.

(5) Coordination Test

(6) *Ben- [Ali- git-tig-i zaman ] ve Hasan-in bin-dig-I yer Ingilizce bil-iyor-du-m.

(7) Contrastive set of adjuncts:

(8) [[Hasan-in anla-dig-in]a gore] uc kisi gel-ecek-mis.

(9)*[[Hasan - anla-dig-i] sey-e gore] herkes anla-r.

(10) [[Hasan-in anla-dig-i] sey-e gore] uc kisi gel-ecek-mis.

References

Aygen, Gulsat. 2000a. Extractability and the nominative case feature on tense. (to appear in) Proceedings of the ICTL 2000 (International Conference in Turkish Linguistics). Bogazici University Aug 2000.

Aygen, G. 2000b. V-to-T-to-C: Extractable Subjects and EPP. (to appear in) Proceedings of WECOL 2000, Fresno University, California, October 2000.

George, L. and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1981. Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish. in Binding and Filtering, ed. Frank Heny, p 105-128. London: Croomhellm Ltd.

Hwang, Kyu-Hong. 1997. Nominative and Default Case Checking in Minimalist Syntax. PhD Diss. University of Washington.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1985. Case Marking, Agreement and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD Diss. Harvard University.

Kural, Murat. 1993. V-TO(-I-TO)-C in Turkish. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics,v.11.ed.Filippo Beghelli &Murat Kural.