Case Assignment and Complement Movement in Turkish Postpositional Structures: A Minimalist-Syntactic Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

This study investigates the syntactic properties of Turkish postpositions within the framework of the Minimalist Program, with particular emphasis on case assignment, complement movement, and the categorical distinction between functional and lexical elements. Drawing on insights from Kornfilt (1997), Cinque (1996), den Dikken (2006), and De Vos (2013), the analysis differentiated between true postpositions, which functioned as syntactic heads and assigned case to their complements, and non-true postpositions, which exhibited morphological possession and behaved as derived nominals. Empirical data from Turkish revealed that movement to the specifier position of the postpositional phrase (Spec, PP) was not triggered by an EPP feature, but rather by linearization requirements at the phonological form (PF) interface. Morphological case—specifically genitive, dative, or ablative—was shown to be a prerequisite for movement and syntactic convergence. In contrast, non-true postpositions formed possessive constructions that lacked functional projection, thereby blocking displacement. These findings support a PF-driven model of movement and reinforce the Strong Minimalist Hypothesis, demonstrating that interface conditions strictly regulate syntactic operations. Turkish postpositions thus fulfill not only semantic roles but also formal syntactic functions. The results carry significant implications for cross-linguistic typology and the analysis of postpositional systems in head-final languages.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ayano, T. (2001). The syntax of postpositions in Japanese [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California].   https://jglobal.jst.go.jp/en/detail?JGLOBAL_ID=200901051308728945
Bahramikhorshid, S., Malekimoghadam, A., & Mirzayini, S. (2018). Grammaticalization in Azerbaijani Turkish: A case study of postpositions. Zabanpazhuhi, 10(27), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2017.11563.1191 [in Persian]
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 (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/edited-volume/4333/chapter/181356/Derivation-by-Phase
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.
De Vos, M. (2013). A PF-based theory of movement. Lingua, 133, 1–30.
den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copular sentences. MIT Press.
Ebrahim Poornik, F., Kord-e Zaferanlu Kambuziya, A., Dabir Moghadam, M., & Golfam, A. (2025). The study of Ezafe construction in Persian based on Halliday’s systemic functional grammar. Linguistic Studies: Theory and Application, 4(4), 51–82. https://doi.org/10.22034/jls.2024.141702.1135 [in Persian]
Erbasi, B., & Gündoğdu, S. (2017). Ezafe across language families: Iranian and Altaic. In Proceedings of the 1st North American conference on Iranian linguistics (NACIL 1) (pp. 28–30). Stony Brook University.          https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/nacil/pdfs/abstracts/Erbasi-Yucel_NACIL_EZAFE.pdf
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (2nd ed., pp. 73–113). MIT Press.
Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Mouton de Gruyter.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
Kornfilt, J. (2009). Turkish and the Turkic languages. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The world’s major languages (2nd ed., pp. 519–544). Routledge.
Pancheva, R. (2011). PF-driven movement and morphological realization. Syntax, 14(2), 123–156. https://pancheva.github.io/papers.html
Shabani, A., & Jalili-Kandelji, M. (2016). A comparative study of the genitive compound in Azerbaijani Turkish and Persian. Persian Literature (Baharestan Sokhan), 13(32), 61–78. https://sid.ir/paper/168525/en [In Persian]
Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge University Press.
Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects
Volume 14, Issue 2
July 2026
Pages 81-94

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics