On the functional structure of the Romanian de-supine

Cornilescu, Alexandra; Cosma, Ruxandra

doi:10.1515/9783110343229.283

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The insights presented above support a movement hypothesis for CDed+DOMed DOs: Cornilescu (2002b) and Cornilescu and Cosma (2014) posit movement of the pronominal clitic out of the VP, presumably from a BigDP-like DO hosted in the complement position of the V (as in Uriagereka 1995, for instance). Gierling's (1997) argument seems to indicate that the doubled DO itself leaves its merge position from within the VP.…”

Section: Experimental Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Hill and Mardale (2019) also notice that K-PE is productive in Old Romanian, while the D-PE is pervasive in Modern Romanian and claim that this diachronic shift from K-PE to D-PE is determined by the rise and spread of clitic constructions in the language. Cornilescu and Cosma (2014) discuss, for instance, the case of Romanian supine clauses and observe that in these configurations the verb may select unmarked and DOMed DOs but never CDed+DOMed DOs. The supine clause in example (5) de vizitat pe cineva contains the indefinite bare quantifier cineva 'somebody' as a DO.…”

Section: Preliminaries: Evidence For Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pronominal clitic has been argued to trigger movement of its double DP from inside the VP into a position within the T area (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, Cornilescu 2002a, Tigău 2011 or to move by itself (Cornilescu 2002b, Cornilescu andCosma 2014). In what follows, we will briefly review some of the arguments supporting movement out of VP: 2 Hill and Mardale (2019) posit a downward reanalysis of PE from a locative preposition (P) to case marker (K) and further to a marker of discourse agreement on the nominal determiner (D): P>K>D. The three stages of reanalysis are argued to trigger various ways of feature-checking mechanisms inside the marked DO: K-PE has a valued discourse feature that foregrounds the marked DP and disallows Clitic Doubling (CD); D-PE bears an underspecified discourse feature which needs CD for valuation.…”

Section: Preliminaries: Evidence For Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DOs expressed by means of personal pronouns) and to accept those DOs which do not require doubling or which disallow it (bare quantifiers such as cineva 'somebody'). Starting from these observations, Cornilescu and Cosma (2014) posit that the prepositional supine is a reduced clause which lacks the Agreement projection. The pronominal clitic is not allowed in the prepositional dative precisely because it needs to leave the VP and reach a projection, which is not part of the reduced clause put forth by the prepositional supine; if the pronominal clitic were to remain inside the VP, we would be able to have clitic doubled DOs within this configuration.…”

Section: Supine Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Subject-Object binding dependencies in Romanian

Tigău

2023

LingBaW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper dwells on an interesting contrast between Romance (Romanian, Spanish a.o.) and Germanic languages (English, German a.o.) with respect to the syntax and the interpretation of the direct object (DO). One structural difference between these two groups of languages amounts to the fact that the former clitic double (CD) and differentially object mark (DOM) their direct objects while the latter do not. This leads to important interpretive consequences when it comes to phenomena such as Subject-Object binding dependences: Non-CD languages rely on the c-command configuration and surface word order in resolving binding relations (the antecedent must c-command the element containing the bound pronoun. As a consequence, a natural way for the DO to bind into the Subject is to have it moved to the left, in a preceding, c-commanding position). As will be shown, in CD languages, the word order configuration is not decisive: the direct object may bind the subject without having to precede it at the same time. The paper draws a parametric difference between configurational languages (where binding is closely linked to the c-command configurations and is sensitive to surface word order) and non-configurational languages, where the same semantic properties can be derived from the internal structure of the direct object (through its featural specification).

show abstract

Section: Experimental Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Preliminaries: Evidence For Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preliminaries: Evidence For Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Supine Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Subject-Object binding dependencies in Romanian

Tigău

2023

LingBaW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…447f. ;Cornilescu and Cosma 2014;Mîrzea Vasile 2015;Nicolae 2019, p. 33) since they are heads rather than specifiers and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic for V-movement in the varieties under investigation. Cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Microvariation in Verb-Movement Parameters within Daco-Romanian and across Daco-Romance

Costea,

Ledgeway

2024

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews some of the principal patterns of morphosyntactic variation within Daco-Romanian and across Daco-Romance in support of a distinction between low vs high V-movement grammars variously distributed in accordance with diatopic variation (Daco-Romance: west vs east, Aromanian: north vs south), diachronic and diagenerational variation (Megleno-Romanian) and endogenous vs exogenous factors (Istro-Romanian). This approach, which builds on the insights of the Borer–Chomsky conjecture, assumes that the locus of parametric variation lies in the lexicon and the (PF-)lexicalization of specific formal feature values of individual functional projections, in our case the clausal heads T and v and the broad cartographic areas that they can be taken to represent. In this way, our analysis locates the relevant dimensions of (micro)variation among different Daco-Romance varieties in properties of T and v. In particular, we show that the feature values of these two heads are not set in isolation, inasmuch as parameters form an interrelated network of implicational relationships: the given value of a particular parameter entails the concomitant activation of associated lower-order parametric choices, whose potential surface effects may consequently become entirely predictable, or indeed render other parameters entirely irrelevant. In this way we can derive properties such as verb–adverb order, auxiliary selection, retention vs loss of the preterite, the availability of a dedicated preverbal subject position, the distribution of DOM, and the different stages of Jespersen’s Cycle across Daco-Romance quite transparently, based on the relevant strength of T and v in individual sub-branches and sub-dialects.

show abstract

Modal particles in Albanian subjunctive, infinitive and supine constructions: presence vs absence of clitic climbing

Turano

2017

Quaderni Di Linguistica E Studi Orientali

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the functional structure of the Romanian de-supine

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Subject-Object binding dependencies in Romanian

Subject-Object binding dependencies in Romanian

Exploring Microvariation in Verb-Movement Parameters within Daco-Romanian and across Daco-Romance

Modal particles in Albanian subjunctive, infinitive and supine constructions: presence vs absence of clitic climbing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About