Off-campus UMass Amherst users: To download campus access dissertations, please use the following link to log into our proxy server with your UMass Amherst user name and password.

Non-UMass Amherst users: Please talk to your librarian about requesting this dissertation through interlibrary loan.

Dissertations that have an embargo placed on them will not be available to anyone until the embargo expires.

Author ORCID Identifier


Open Access Dissertation

Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Degree Program


Year Degree Awarded


Month Degree Awarded


First Advisor

Faruk Akkuş

Second Advisor

Kyle Johnson

Third Advisor

Rajesh Bhatt

Fourth Advisor

Luiz Amaral

Subject Categories

Syntax | Typological Linguistics and Linguistic Diversity


This dissertation focuses on long object movement (LOM), which is a type of A-movement from the embedded object position inside an infinitive to the matrix subject position. In the literature, LOM is usually equated with restructuring. The dissertation demonstrates that LOM is not a uniform phenomenon in Turkish. Verbs that allow LOM fall into two types and exhibit distinct behaviors, with only one type counting as restructuring.

The infinitival complements of one class of LOM verbs show dependency on the matrix domain for structural case-checking of an embedded object. These verbs are analyzed as restructuring LOM verbs selecting a reduced-size infinitival complement and an accusative case-lacking special Voice head for this complement. The infinitives selected by the other class of LOM verbs do not show such case dependency. These verbs are analyzed as non-restructuring LOM verbs that allow LOM across a CP-sized infinitival complement (i.e., hyperraising). I adopt an approach in which specifiers are not intrinsically A- or Ā-positions (van Urk, 2015), and a CP-specifier can be an A-position (i.a. Takeuchi, 2010; Fong, 2019; Wurmbrand, 2019).

In a Turkish LOM configuration, the embedded verb must be in passive voice in addition to the matrix verb. Also, the distance in LOM can be even longer, across two infinitival embeddings. The passive voice of the embedded infinitive and the possibility of LOM through multiple infinitival clause boundaries are two of the many interesting properties of LOM in Turkish, which contrast with, for example, German.

I propose that LOM configurations are bi-clausal and that LOM verbs are lexical categories in Turkish (cf. Cinque, 2006). In addition, both kinds of infinitival complements are larger than VPs, and the embedding and embedded verbs do not form a verb cluster (cf. Keine and Bhatt, 2016). The embedded Voice head does not receive voice and implicit agent features from the embedding Voice head (cf. Wurmbrand and Shimamura, 2017). LOM in Turkish is successive cyclic A-movement, which is blocked if the embedded verb is in active voice with a PRO subject (Rizzi, 1990). This is why the embedded verb must be in passive voice in Turkish LOM configurations.