This text deals with a central issue in modern linguistic theory: that of locality as expressed in the behaviour of non-overt categories. Grosu presents a detailed study of free relatives, nominal phrases, and a variety of constructions in Rumanian involving mill operators. This work should be of interest not only to linguists working on theoretical issues, but also to linguists interested in descriptive issues. It is estimated that Grosu's original detailed studies of major constructions in Rumanian - a language not yet thoroughly investigated in modern linguistics - will prove formative.
Author(s): Alexander Grosu
Year: 1994
Language: English
Pages: 272
BOOK COVER......Page 1
HALF-TITLE......Page 2
TITLE......Page 5
COPYRIGHT......Page 6
CONTENTS......Page 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......Page 10
INTRODUCTION......Page 11
Study I The syntax of Free Relative Constructions (FRCs)......Page 13
INTRODUCTION......Page 14
1.1 THE WH-HEAD ANALYSIS......Page 23
1.2.1 Groos and van Riemsdijk’s proposals......Page 28
1.2.2 Hirschbühler and Rivero’s proposals......Page 32
1.2.3 Harbert’s proposals......Page 34
1.3 THE pro IN GOVERNED POSITIONS ANALYSIS......Page 38
1.4.1 The Notion ‘Kase’......Page 41
1.4.2 Matching constructions......Page 44
1.4.3 Non-Matching Constructions in A-Positions......Page 46
1.4.3.1 AGR as FRC-external Identifier......Page 47
1.4.3.2 Rich Case asFRC-external identifier......Page 52
1.4.3.3 FRCs in ungoverned positions......Page 57
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS......Page 64
2.1 FRCs WITH A REORDERED NULL OPERATOR......Page 65
2.2 FRCs WITH RESUMPTIVE PRONOUNS IN SITU......Page 67
2.3 FRCs WITH SYNTACTIC MOVEMENT TO A POSITION OTHER THAN [SPEC, C’]......Page 68
2.4 HEAD-INTERNAL RELATIVES......Page 70
2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......Page 75
INTRODUCTION......Page 77
3.1 THE FORMAL/CONTENT DISTINCTION IN EARLIER WORK AND A NEW THEORY OF pro......Page 78
3.1.1.1 Rizzi (1986)......Page 79
3.1.2.1 Authier (1992)......Page 80
3.1.2.2 Jaeggli and Safir (1989b)......Page 81
3.1.2.3 Rizzi (1986)......Page 83
3.1.3 An alternative theory of pro......Page 84
3.2 AMOUNT CONSTRUCTIONS, pro IDENTIFICATION AND THE ANTI-PIED-PIPING EFFECTS......Page 86
3.2.1 On the syntax and semantics of amount relative constructions......Page 87
3.2.2 FRs and the Typology of Clauses......Page 92
3.2.3 The upper and lower bounds of Pied-Piping, and the wh-Criterion......Page 93
3.2.4 Anti-Pied-Piping Effects as a Result of pro-Identification Requirements......Page 99
3.2.5 On the notion ‘local domain’ for pro-Identification......Page 102
3.2.6 A German Correlative-like Construction......Page 105
3.2.7 Summary......Page 106
3.3.1 Formal Licensing......Page 107
3.5.2.2 Identification by default......Page 108
3.3.2.3 Identification by an antecedent......Page 109
3.3.3 On the S-Structure Identification of pro......Page 110
3.4 ON NON-NOMINAL FRCs......Page 112
3.4.1 Larson’s proposals......Page 113
3.4.2 Arguments for the [+S] property in missing-P FRCs......Page 116
3.4.3.1 Critique ofLarson ’s argument for [+H]......Page 122
3.4.3.2 An empirical argument for [−H]......Page 123
3.4.4 The syntax of null categories in missing-P FRCs......Page 128
3.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......Page 131
4.1.1 Preliminary Remarks......Page 133
4.2.1 ‘Downward’Attraction......Page 137
4.2.2 Inverse ‘Upward’ Attraction......Page 138
4.3.1 ‘Downward’Matching......Page 140
4.3.2 ‘Upward’ Matching......Page 142
4.3.2.1.1 Non-matching in Romance languages......Page 143
4.3.2.1.2 Non-matching in Modern German.......Page 151
4.3.3 Non-matching in maximally-liberal languages......Page 154
4.3.4 Summary......Page 157
4.4.1 Preliminaries......Page 159
4.4.2 The trade-off between ‘richness’ and Kase-restrictions......Page 160
4.4.3 Some ‘unexpected’ states of affairs......Page 162
4.4.4 Some thoughts on diachronical evolution......Page 165
5 The analysis of non-indicative/irrealis FRCs......Page 167
5.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS......Page 173
Study II Romanian determiners as functional categories......Page 175
INTRODUCTION......Page 176
6 Theoretical background and earlier results......Page 178
6.1 SOME FACTS OF ROMANIAN AND THEIR THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE......Page 186
6.2 THE N-BORNE ENCLITIC DEFINITE ARTICLE AS CASE ASSIGNER......Page 189
6.3 GENITIVE PHRASES AS OBJECTS OF COMPLEX PREPOSITIONS......Page 192
6.3.1. Prepositions with nominal stems......Page 193
6.3.2 The preposition a+L......Page 195
6.4 GENITIVES AFTER ADJECTIVES......Page 200
6.5.1 -L as a non-Case assigner......Page 209
6.5.2 On neutralized CEL......Page 211
7.1.1 General Considerations......Page 217
7.1.2 Non-enclitic counterparts to definite-L......Page 218
7.1.3 N-borne-L......Page 220
7.1.4 A-borne-L......Page 221
7.2 ENCLITICIZATION WITHIN THE MINIMALISTIC FRAMEWORK......Page 222
7.3 THE LINEAR ORDER OF GENITIVE PHRASES AND THEIR LICENSERS......Page 223
7.4 ADJACENCY EFFECTS......Page 224
7.4.1 Analytical Options within the Government and Binding Framework......Page 225
7.4.2 Analytical Options within the Minimalistic Framework......Page 226
7.4.3 Conjectures and Problems for Subsequent Research......Page 227
7.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS......Page 229
Study III On Null Operators in Romanian......Page 231
INTRODUCTION......Page 232
8.1 CLEFT CONSTRUCTIONS......Page 234
8.2 COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS......Page 236
8.3 RELATIVE CLAUSES......Page 241
8.4 SUPINE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH NOs......Page 252
8.5 TOO/ENOUGH CONSTRUCTIONS......Page 259
8.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......Page 260
NOTES......Page 264
BIBLIOGRAPHY......Page 295
INDEX......Page 301
