Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:46:22.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(De)-Focussing and Object Raising in Romanian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Gabriela Alboiu
Gabriela Alboiu*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba and University of Bucharest
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that VOS structures in Romanian are derived from a basic VSO word order and, consequently, involve object raising out of VP, across the subject left in situ. Binding interactions and the availability of raising quantified NPs clause-medially provide syntactic support for an A-movement analysis of the raised objects. In contrast to other languages that allow (or require) movement of objects to argumental positions, it is argued that in Romanian VOS structures the object does not move for the purposes of Case checking nor does object raising entail a strong, definite interpretation of the moved NP. Rather, object raising is an instance of de-focussing, made possible by a strong nominal feature on the abstract verb v.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose que les structures VOS en roumain sont dérivées à partir d’un ordre de base VSO. En conséquence, c’est l’objet qui se déplace à l’extérieur du VP, par-dessus le sujet qui demeure dans sa position de base. Les interactions de phénomènes de liage et la possibilité de déplacer des objets quantifiés montrent que, du point de vue syntaxique, le déplacement des objets est un déplacement argumental. Contrairement aux autres langues qui permettent (ou exigent) le déplacement des objets dans des positions argumentales, le déplacement des objets en roumain n’est pas requis pour vérifier le Cas et n’entraîne pas une interprétation spécifique ou définie des syntagmes nominaux déplacés. Les objets déplacés sont plutôt défocalisés, leur déplacement étant la conséquence d’un trait nominal fort du verbe abstrait v.

Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alboiu, Gabriela. 1998. Object raising in Romanian. In CLA Annual Conference Proceedings, ed. Jensen, John and Van Herk, Gerard, 1–11. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa, University of Ottawa Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1994. Issues in the syntax of adverbs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Postdam.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Ken. 1996. The structural determination of Case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27:1–68.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27:195–237.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1996. Subjects and clause structure. Ms, University of Venice.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The minimalist framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15.Google Scholar
Cinque, Gugliemo. 1990. Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Thráinsson, Hoskuldur. 1993. Object shift in double object constructions and the theory of Case. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19:131–174.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1991. On the position of subjects. In Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. Rothstein, Samuel D., 63–81. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. In press. The double subject construction in Romanian. In Comparative studies in Romanian syntax, ed. Motapanyane, Virginia. Dordrecht: Elsevier.Google Scholar
De Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case configuration and Noun Phrase interpretation. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1991. Parameters of object movement. In Studies on Scrambling: Movement and nonmovement approaches to free word-order phenomena, ed. Corver, Norbert and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 101–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gierling, Diana. 1997. Clitic doubling, specificity and focus in Romanian. In Clitics, pronouns and movement, ed. Black, J.R. and Motapanyane, Virginia: 63–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in Scandinavian languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211–258.Google Scholar
Kotalik, Jana. 1996. A government-binding treatment of theme and rheme in Czech. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–391.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1991. Clitic doubling, object agreement and specificity. In Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society: 263–277.Google Scholar
Motapanyane, Virginia. 1995. Theoretical implications of complementation in Romanian. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. The structure of the clause and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:63–120.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84:159–180.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floated quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425–449.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. 1995. Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. Kiss, Katalin É., 122–153. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1992. Verb movement and the licensing of NP positions in Germanic. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1989. Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar