A negative polarity item (henceforth, NPI) needs a licensor and it may be an overt negation, question force, or a conditional clause (Benmamoun, 1997; Kelepir, 2001; Kumar, 2006; Kural, 1997; Laka, 2013; Mahajan, 1990; Vasishth, 1999). Studies on NPI literature abound and various studies have suggested various licensing conditions of NPIs. However, literature on the licensing conditions of NPIs can be grouped under two major titles. One of them is clausemateness (Choe, 1988; Kelepir, 2001; Muraki, 1978), which basically requires that NPIs and negation be in the same clausal domain. On the other side of the coin stands a more recent account, i.e. phasemateness (Kayabaşı & Özgen 2018; Yamashita, 2003), which states that NPIs must be spelt out within the same domain in which negation exists. Given the two accounts, only phasemateness can predict the behaviors of NPIs in full finite CPs, whereas none of those accounts can predict the grammaticality of nominal DP domains in Turkish with a negative licensor outside of the spell-out domain of the same DP. I attempted to discuss this problem at length, and show that the structural hierarchy within Turkish DPs is somewhat tricky. I will follow Gallego (2010) and Chomsky (2001) and assume that there is phase sliding within DPs, thus NPIs are also licensed within the same domain on the grounds of weak phase impenetrability condition ‘PIC’ (a.k.a. PIC2). The system I will propose here is also borne out by other independent factors such as binding and embedding in Turkish.