Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831

CiteScore 2016: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 34, Issue 3 (Aug 2017)

Issues

Grammaticalization of auxiliaries and parametric changes

Gabriela Alboiu / Virginia Hill
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Humanities and Languages, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L5, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-05-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0007

Abstract

This paper looks at constructions with non-clitic auxiliaries in Old Romanian, which precede the generalized option for clitic auxiliaries in the same language. We argue that non-clitic auxiliaries belong to a grammar with genuine SVO, scrambling to Spec, AspP, and subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI as AUX-to Fin). The generalization of the clitic auxiliary entails the loss of these properties, while triggering a parametric shift in word order to VSO, discourse oriented fronting of constituents (to CP only instead of Spec, AspP), and Long Head Movement (LHM through V-to-Focus) instead of SAI. Implicitly, this analysis supports the distinction between A (AUX-to-Fin) and A-bar (V-to-Focus) head movement of verbal elements, and further refines it by showing that these two types of movement do not concern two specific types of heads (i.e., operator for the C domain versus non-operator for the T domain; Roberts 2001, Head movement. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 113–147. Oxford: Blackwell), but can affect either of them.

References

  • Adams, M. 1988. Les effets V2 en ancient et en moyen français. In P. Hirschbuhler & A. Rochette (eds.), Aspects de la syntaxe historique du français, Revue québècoise de linguistique théorique et apliquée 7: 13-40.Google Scholar

  • Alboiu, G., V Hill & I. Sitaridou 2015. Discourse-driven V-to-C in early Modern Romanian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(4). 1057–1088.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Alboiu, Gabriela. 2002. The features of movement in Romanian. Bucharest: EUB.Google Scholar

  • Avram, L. 1999. Auxiliaries and the structure of language. Bucharest: EUB.Google Scholar

  • Avram, L. & V. Hill. 2007. An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian. In Raùl Araunovich (ed.), Split auxiliary systems, 47–64. Amsterdam: Walter Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Belletti, Adriana. 2008. Structures and strategies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bhatt, R. & R. Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. I, 638–687. Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Ž. 2007. On the locality of motivation of move and agree. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 589–645.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cheng, Lisa. 1997. On the typology of Wh-questions. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ciucivara, Oana. 2009. A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in romance: The view from Romanian. NYU PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Cornilescu, A. 2000. The double subject construction in Romanian. In Comparative studies in Romanian syntax, 83–134. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 351–397.Google Scholar

  • Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Donati, Caterina & Carlo Cecchetto. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4). 519–560.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dragomirescu, Adina. 2013. O schimbare parametrică de la româna veche la româna modernă în sintaxa formelor verbale compuse cu auxiliar. Limba română LXII(2). 225−239.Google Scholar

  • Dragomirescu, Adina & Alexandru Nicolae. 2016. Interpolation in Old Romanian and Istro-Romanian. Paper presented at LSRL 46, April 3–5, Stony Brook, New York.Google Scholar

  • Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Erteschik-Shir, Naomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Frâncu, Constantin. 2009. Gramatica limbii române vechi (1521–1780). Iaşi: Demiurg.Google Scholar

  • Gheţie, Ion (ed.). 1997. Istoria limbii române literare. Epoca veche. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar

  • Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Harris, M. 1978. The evolution of French syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hill, V. 2002. Adhering focus. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1). 164–172.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hill, Virginia & Gabriela Alboiu. 2016. Verb movement and clause structure in Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Isac, Daniela. 2015. The morphosyntax of imperatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 647–687.Google Scholar

  • Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mišeska -Tomić, Olga. 2006. Balkan sprachbund morpho-syntactic features, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Motapanyane, V. 1994. An A-position for Romanian subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 729–734.Google Scholar

  • Nicolae, Alexandru. 2015. Ordinea constituenţilor în limba română: O perspectivă diacronică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar

  • Ordóñez, Fernandez. 1998. Post-verbal assymetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(2). 313–345.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.). 2016. The syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pancheva, Roumyana. 2005. The rise and fall of second-position clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 103–167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. B. Ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness, 98–130. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

  • Rivero, M. L., 1993. LHM vs V2 and null subjects in Old Romance. Lingua 89. 217–245.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rivero, M.L. & A. Terzi. 1995. Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31. 301–332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–339. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, L. & U. Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In H. M. Gärtner & U. Sauerland (ed.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-Criterion. In Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and functional heads, 63–90. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, Ian. 2001. Head movement. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 113–147. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, I. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Sevcenco, Anca. 2015. Restrictive and appositive relatives. In V. Hill (ed.), Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, 329–364. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sportiche, Dominique. 1995. Clitic constructions. In Laurie Zaring & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Phrase structure and the Lexicon, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar

  • Todi, Aida. 2001. Elemente de sintaxă românească veche. Iaşi: Editura Paralela 45.Google Scholar

  • Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French: Verb second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Zafiu, Rodica. 2014. Auxiliary encliticization in 16th century Romanian: Restrictions and regularities. Linguistica Atlantica 33(2). 71–86.Google Scholar

  • Zamfir, Dana. 2007. Morfologia verbului în daco-româna veche. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar

  • Zanuttini, Raffaella & Paul Portner. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1). 39–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Textual References

    CCat

    Al. Roman-Moraru. 1982. Coresi-Catehism. In Gheţie, Ion (ed), Texte

    româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea.101-105. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

    CEV

    Puşcariu, Sextil & Procopovici, Alexie. 1914. Carte cu învăţătură (1581). Bucureşti: Atelierele Grafice Socec & Co.

    CM

    Drimba, Vladimir. 1998. Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor şi molitevnic rumânesc. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

    Cod Tod

    Drăgan, Nicolae. 1914. Două manuscrise vechi: Codicele Todorescu şi Codicele Marţian. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei (Librăria Socec & Sfetea).

    C-PS

    Toma, Stela. 1976. Coresi. Psaltirea slavo-română. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

    C-Tetr.2

    Dimitrescu, Florica. 1963. Tetraevangelul tipărit de Coresi. Braşov 1560-1561. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

    DIR

    Chivu, Gheorghe et al. 1979. Documente şi însemnări româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

    DRH

    Oţetea, Andrei et al. 1969. Documenta Romaniae Historica A. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.

    FT

    Gheţie, Ion. 1982. Fragmentul Todorescu (Carte de cântece).In Texte româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. 336–343. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

    Moxa

    Mihăilă, G. 1989. Mihail Moxa, Cronograf. Bucureşti: Minerva.

    N

    Iordan, Iorgu. 1955. Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Bucharest: Editura de Stat.

    NT

    ------------. 1988. Ştefan, Simion, Noul Testament (1648). Alba Iulia: Editura Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române.

    PO

    Pamfil, Viorica. 1968. Palia de la Orăştie 1581-1582. Bucureşti: Editura

    Academiei.

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-25

Published in Print: 2017-08-28


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0007.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in