Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian: A Comparative Romance Perspective (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780198807360, 0198807368

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

O X F O R D S T U D I E S I N D I A CH R O N I C A ND H I S T O R I CA L L I N G U I S T I CS   Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge              Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge                         Clause Structure and Word Order in the History of German Edited by Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi, and Helmut Weiß  Word Order Change Edited by Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso  Arabic Historical Dialectology Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes  Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective Edited by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine  Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou  Indefinites between Latin and Romance Chiara Gianollo  Verb Second in Medieval Romance Sam Wolfe  Referential Null Subjects in Early English Kristian A. Rusten  Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective Alexandru Nicolae For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective

ALEXANDRU NICOLAE

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford,  , United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Alexandru Nicolae  The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in  Impression:  All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press  Madison Avenue, New York, NY , United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number:  ISBN –––– Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon,   Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

In loving memory of my grandmother, Elena Ghit¸ă (–)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Contents Series preface Preface Acknowledgements List of tables Abbreviations, symbols, and conventions  Word order and parameter change in Romanian: An introduction . . . . . .

Word order variation and change in Romanian Theoretical framework Periodization and corpus Methodological problems The issue of ‘foreign’ syntactic features Glosses and examples

 Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar . Introduction .. Setting the problem .. Outline and framework .. Claims . Background .. Overview of verb raising in modern Romanian: Height and strategy .. Features of old Romance V grammars . Old Romanian inversion: From residual V to focus .. Diagnosing V ... Constant parametric settings: Negation and auxiliaries ... Pronominal clitics: Evidence for a vP-cliticization site ... Summary: Implications for diagnosing V-to-C movement ... V-movement targets specifiers ... V-to-C is V-to-Fin ... V clauses ... Summary .. V as the residual option ... Some methodological remarks ... V-to-C vs V-to-I in figures ... The matrix-embedded asymmetry

xi xii xiv xvii xviii                            

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

viii

Contents

... Reanalysis of V as a focus-marking strategy ... Summary: On the diachrony of V in old Romanian . Parameter resetting in a broader comparative perspective  Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core: Interpolation, scrambling, and related phenomena . Introduction .. The data: Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core .. Terminology and framework .. Outline and difficulties . Interpolation: Romance and old Romanian .. Textual distribution, diachrony, and Romance counterparts .. Properties of interpolation in old Romanian ... Morphological properties ... Range of interpolated constituents ... Higher functional space ... A formal account of the observed distribution .. Summary . Discontiguous verbal clusters .. An empirical overview ... Old Romanian distribution and Romance counterparts ... A methodological issue in the analysis of discontiguous verbal clusters .. Properties of discontiguous verbal clusters in old Romanian ... Morphological properties ... Status of auxiliary verbs ... Range of interposed constituents ... The matrix–embedded asymmetry ... A formal account of discontiguous verbal clusters .. Summary: Diachronic changes and the nature of the vP-edge . Other types of discontiguous linearizations .. Discontiguous linearizations involving higher functional elements .. A richer vP-periphery with modal complex predicates . Concluding remarks  Word order in the nominal phrase . Introduction and problems .. Setting the problems .. Framework and outline . Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects .. Syntax of definite DPs in modern Romanian ... Suffixal nature of the Romanian enclitic definite article

                                     

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Contents ... Patterns of definiteness valuation ... Summary .. Low definite article in old Romanian ... DP-internal distribution ... Triggering factors and syntactic analysis ... Long-distance valuation in old Romanian: Consequences .. Summary: Changes in the valuation and realization of definiteness . The prenominal domain .. Adjectival positions and N(P)-raising ... The data ... Syntactic analysis: Changes in the level and strategy of N(P)‑raising ... Summary .. Accessing the DP-edge .. Summary: Reshaping the prenominal domain . Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness .. Typology of discontinuous structures .. Residual head finality in the nominal and adjectival domains .. Syntactic analysis: Relation to definiteness . Concluding remarks .. Low definite article and emergence of the Romanian suffixal definite article .. DP-internal word order rigidification  Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel . Introduction and outline . The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives .. An overview of the Romanian demonstrative system .. The view from modern Romanian: Etymology and syntax ... The distribution of adnominal demonstratives in modern Romanian ... On the origin of strong forms: A bare demonstrativereinforcer construction ... The syntactic derivation of adnominal demonstrative constructions ... Summary .. The view from diachrony: Demonstrative specialization and word order tightening ... Categorially non-distinct adnominal demonstratives ... Definiteness valuation by adnominal demonstratives ... Demonstratives in polydefinite structures

ix                                  

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

x

Contents ... Non-adjacency: Phrasal movement across strong demonstratives ... On the diachrony of the discussed patterns ... The postnominal demonstrative construction: A reanalysed appositional structure .. Summary . The emergence of the determiner cel .. The view from modern Romanian ... Cel vs demonstratives ... Distributional properties ... Syntactic analysis and its consequences .. The view from diachrony: Causes and consequences in the specialization of cel ... (A)cel > cel or (a)cela > cel? ... Polydefiniteness ... Distribution ... Competition with the suffixal definite article ... The diachronic development of cel .. Summary

 Diachronic features of Romanian in a broader comparative setting . . . .

Parameters of ‘height’: V-movement and N-movement Language contact: Translations and the Balkan Sprachbund Surface analogy vs deep structural properties Lessons for syntactic theory and syntactic change

Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts References Index

                       

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focussing on change in linguistic structure or/and change in grammars that are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Preface This monograph provides an exhaustive description and in-depth analysis of the major word order changes affecting the clausal and the nominal domains in the passage from old to modern Romanian – a description couched within an upto-date theoretical framework. From a methodological perspective, diachronic syntactic variation and change represent one of the areas best suited for the investigation of the nature and format of linguistic parameters. The comparison of successive stages of the same language considerably reduces the variables that need to be controlled for (just like the comparison of closely related languages and dialects advocated in microcomparative syntax, see Kayne ), thus increasing the prospect of setting up valid correlations and generalizations. One of the major objectives of diachronic syntax, namely the study of parameter change, is of direct relevance to understanding the nature of linguistic parameters, as it asks questions about how parameters are set, or how parametric resetting takes place. In addition, diachronic approaches not only test hypotheses on language change in general but also assess the validity of synchronic analyses. This empirical investigation offers formal analyses of the phenomena discussed, leaving aside controversial and unresolved intricate technical details. I believe that the empirical description of old Romanian will be useful to researchers interested in the general morphosyntactic development of Romance languages. The phenomena under investigation have been analysed exhaustively, with details that may sometimes have a minor import on the overall argumentation; this will allow other researchers to reinterpret the data from a different angle or in a different theoretical paradigm in future work. I have been guided by the belief that, in order to understand diachronic variation and change, it is necessary to have a clear understanding and analysis of the synchronic data. An important tool for the analyst of synchronic data is the grammaticality judgement – a tool unavailable to the diachronic linguist. I have therefore adopted a ‘reverse engineering’ strategy and applied it systematically: start from a brief synchronic analysis and then move to diachrony. The goals of the book are manifold, combining issues of descriptive adequacy with issues of explanatory adequacy. (i) Analysis of phenomena that are quantitatively relevant to the syntax of old Romanian. The monograph is not intended to be a collection of exceptionally rare examples (a ‘cabinet of linguistic curiosities’), but rather a systematic analysis of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Preface

xiii

phenomena genuinely relevant for the inner workings of the syntax of (old) Romanian. Section . discusses in some detail the issue of ‘quantitative relevance’. (ii) Examination of phenomena that are rare in Romance or specific to old Romanian. Phenomena that are rarely attested in the Romance family or specific to old Romanian (e.g. the double, proclitic and enclitic, realization of a pronominal clitic; hyperbaton with extraction from definite DPs; the low definite article) will prove instrumental to a deeper understanding of complex empirical and theoretical issues. (iii) A comparative diachronic Romance perspective. The facts of old Romanian are placed in a diachronic Romance comparative setting, which sometimes encompasses their Latin ancestry. This methodological choice allows one to identify points of convergence and variation in the transition from Latin to Romance, opening up the possibility of formulating hypotheses on the source and nature of parametric variation, and subsequently of testing them on the basis of the observed diachronic changes. For example, from this perspective emerge some important consequences for the analysis of the V phenomenon in old and medieval Romance, old Romanian illustrating a new facet of this phenomenon, previously not registered in the Romance diachronic scholarship. (iv) A double diachronic perspective. The combined qualitative and quantitative analyses presented here will be concerned with the gradual diachronic changes that took place within the boundaries of the old Romanian period, as well as with the major parametric changes that occurred in the passage from old to modern Romanian. For example, in old Romanian, the relaxed V grammar specific of the earliest Romanian texts is reanalysed as a focus-marking strategy in the later texts (the Moldavian chronicles studied by Hill and Alboiu ); the transition from old to modern Romanian is characterized by a major parametric change, namely the overall elimination of V-to-C movement in non-imperative contexts in favour of a generalized V-to-I grammar. (v) The relevance of diachronic language contact. The textual attestations of old Romanian represent an interesting mixture of non-translated texts and translations of different sources (Old Church Slavonic, Hungarian, Greek, etc.; see §.). This heterogeneous composition of the corpus of old Romanian makes it a fertile test bed for formulating and testing hypotheses on the range and effects of language contact in diachronic change. Alexandru Nicolae ‘Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics University of Bucharest Cambridge, September 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Acknowledgements Writing a monograph is seldom an entirely individual enterprise, hence I would like to express my gratitude to my mentors and peers for their comments, recommendations, and critical assessment of the data and ideas presented here. What I owe to my mentors is incalculable. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan has been my supervisor since my first year as a BA student and ever since has taken the time to guide me and read my work, always offering insightful comments and constructive criticism; to this day, she continues to be my first port of call for scientific and personal advice. Alexandra Cornilescu, with exceptional generosity, invited me to share authorship with her when I was an MA student and spent many hours teaching me generative linguistics and helping me to improve my English. In Cambridge I had the chance of meeting two remarkable linguists: Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts. Despite his tight (often impossible!) schedule, Adam Ledgeway has always found the time to answer my questions, to guide my readings, and to read my manuscripts (including the present book); his generosity is infinite, his curiosity is contagious, and his friendship is real. I also owe a great deal of gratitude to Ian Roberts: my first period of study in Cambridge () was sponsored by Ian, who also agreed to cosupervise my PhD dissertation. Through his well-known ‘healthy skepticism’, Ian did what great supervisors do: he helped me clarify my ideas and find better arguments for my claims and analyses. I am also grateful to two of my teachers from the University of Bucharest, Camelia Stan and Rodica Zafiu, who supported me without reservation and always kindly put their knowledge and expertise at my disposal. Adina Dragomirescu, my partner in life and in linguistics, is my constant source of energy and balance in all respects. Mere words cannot express my love for her. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my two anonymous reviewers for their careful examination of the submitted book proposal: their observations and suggestions, received at such an earlier stage, have helped me to improve the quality of the book in many ways. For productive discussions, suggestions, and bibliographical references, I would like to express gratitude to my colleagues in Bucharest: Andrei Avram, Larisa Avram, Raluca Brăescu, Gh. Chivu, Ştefan Colceriu, Blanca Croitor, Andreea Dinică, Mircea Frânculescu, Ionut¸ Geană, Mihaela Gheorghe, Carmen Mîrzea Vasile, Isabela Nedelcu, Irina Nicula, †Marius Sala, Marina Rădulescu-Sala, Andra Vasilescu, and Adnana Boioc and Ştefania Costea, junior members of the Institute of Linguistics. I have also been lucky enough to benefit from discussions with Florica Dimitrescu (now in her nineties), a world-renowned expert in the history of the Romanian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Acknowledgements

xv

language, and to meet Valeria Gut¸u Romalo and Dumitru Chit¸oran, who taught the past generations (my teachers’ teachers). I should also thank colleagues outside Bucharest who gave me help and precious feedback at various points: Roberta D’Alessandro, Gabriela Alboiu, Norbert Corver, Alexandru Gafton, Giuliana Giusti, Virginia Hill, Alessandra Lombardi, Martin Maiden, Edith Moravcsik, Dana Niculescu, Diego Pescarini, and Nigel Vincent. I have had the opportunity to discuss my work with colleagues in two of the most prestigious departments of linguistics in the world: Cambridge () and MIT (). In Cambridge, I am grateful to the following colleagues for discussions of my work: Gigi Andriani, Theresa Biberauer, Valentina Colasanti, Michelle Sheehan, Norma Schifano, Giusi Silvestri, Cameron Taylor, and Jenneke van der Wal. My stay in Cambridge and my  monograph (Nicolae c), on which chapter  of the present book is based, were supported by a postdoctoral fellowship (POSDRU// ./S/), and I am grateful to Academician Eugen Simion and Professor Valeriu-Ioan Franc for managing the postdoctoral programme. At MIT, David Pesetsky offered me weekly consultations, Noam Chomsky was generous to offer me and Adina several appointments, and Donca Steriade (also a dear friend), Shigeru Miyagawa, Norvin Richards, and Danny Fox took the time to discuss my research. I am grateful to the Romanian–US Fulbright Commission for selecting me for a Fulbright Senior Scholar fellowship, which enabled me to spend six months at MIT; professor Rodica Mihăilă and Corina Dănăilă deserve my special thanks. Parts of the book report preliminary results of two current postdoctoral fellowships, whose support I acknowledge: ‘Discontinuous Structures in the Diachronic Syntax of Romanian: Some Unfinished Business’ (PN-III-P-.-PD--, financed by UEFISCDI) and ‘Towards a Uniform Syntactic Analysis of Modal Verb Configurations in Romanian’ (Young Researcher’s Grant, financed by ICUB, University of Bucharest). * There are four people who have been extremely supportive during the preparation of the final version of the book: Adam Ledgeway and Adina Dragomirescu read the manuscript and gave me important feedback, which improved the book in profound ways, and Ştefania Costea and Adnana Boioc undertook the extremely meticulous chore of helping me to check all the old Romanian examples against philological editions. They have my full gratitude. I am grateful to Julia Steer and Vicki Sunter of Oxford University Press for their professionalism and for the understanding they demonstrated throughout our collaboration. I am also indebted to Manuela Tecușan, who did a wonderful job with the copy-editing of manuscript. *

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

xvi

Acknowledgements

Heartfelt thanks go to my family (my wife Adina and our newborn child Adam, my parents Georgeta and Ion, my brother Adrian, his wife Nicoleta, and their children Ariana and Alexandru, my family in Bucharest, Victoria and Dana, and my best friend Răzvan), to my non-linguist friends in Cambridge (Alan, Claudia and Clara Duffy), and to my closest friends, which represent my extended family (Remus, Gabriel, Alexandru, and Sabin). * One of my greatest joys in my adult life was having my grandparents around. My closest and last surviving grandmother, my guardian angel, Elena, passed away in February , while I was writing this book. I therefore dedicate it to her memory, with all my love and respect.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

List of tables . Compound past and analytic future in OR: share of inversion



. V-to-I vs V-to-C (V); diagnostic: auxiliaries . The proclisis–enclisis alternation with synthetic indicatives

 

. The proclisis–enclisis alternation with synthetic indicatives and subjunctives . The matrix–embedded asymmetry; diagnostic: auxiliary inversion

 

. The matrix–embedded asymmetry; diagnostic: pronominal enclisis



. The matrix–embedded asymmetry of discontiguous verbal clusters . Prenominal–postnominal variation in the placement of relational adjectives

 

. Demonstratives with initial a- vs demonstratives without initial a. Weak demonstratives, strong demonstratives, and identity determiners/ pronouns



. Strong vs weak forms in prenominal position . Pronominal vs adnominal usage of strong forms

 

. The paradigm of the determiner cel . The rise of a-prosthesis with weak proximal demonstratives (cest vs acest ‘this’)







OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Abbreviations, symbols, and conventions 

st person



nd person



rd person

A/ADJ

adjective

ACC

accusative

AP

adjectival phrase

Asp

aspect

AspP

aspect phrase

Aux

auxiliary verb

AvP

adverbial phrase

C

complementizer

c.

century

Cal.

Calabrian

CardP

cardinal (numeral) phrase

Cat.

Catalan

Cl

pronominal clitic

Compl

complement

COND

conditional

CoordP

coordinated phrase

CP

complementizer phrase

D

determiner

DAT

dative

DEF

definite

Deic

deictic

DeicP

deictic phrase

Dem

demonstrative

DemP

demonstrative phrase

DOM

differential object marker

DP

determiner phrase

F

feminine

Fin

finiteness

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Abbreviations, symbols, and conventions FinP

finiteness phrase

fnt.

footnote

Foc

focus

FocP

focus phrase

FP

Functional Projection

Fr.

French

FUT

future

GEN

genitive

GER

gerund

I

inflection

i

interpretable (feature)

IMP

imperative

IMPERF

imperfect(ive)

IND

indicative

INF

infinitive

INT

interrogative (particle)

INV

invariable

IP

inflectional phrase

IRR

irrealis

It.

Italian

Lat.

Latin

LHM

Long Head Movement

lit.

literally

M

masculine

MoodP

mood phrase

MR

modern Romanian

n

little n

N

noun/nominal; northern

Nap.

Neapolitan

Neg

negation

NegP

negation phrase

NOM

nominative

nP

little nP

NP

noun phrase

O

old

OR

old Romanian

OrdP

ordinal (numeral) phrase

xix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

xx

Abbreviations, symbols, and conventions

P

preposition

p.c.

personal communication

PASS

passive

PERF

perfective

Pers

person

PersP

PersP

PL

plural

PLUPERF

pluperfect

POL

polite

PP

prepositional phrase

PPLE

participle

PRES

present

PS

simple past/preterite (Fr. passé simple)

Ptg.

Portuguese

Q

quantifier

QP

quantifier phrase

QualA

qualifying adjective

RC

relative clause

REFL

reflexive

ReinfP

reinforcer phrase

RelA

relational adjective

S

subject; southern; strong (demonstrative)

SAI

Subject–Auxiliary Inversion

SG

singular

Sp.

Spanish

Spec

specifier

SUBJ

subjunctive

T

tense

TAM

Tense–Aspect–Mood

Top

topic

TopP

topic phrase

TP

tense phrase

u

uninterpretable (feature)

v

little v

V

verb

V

verb second

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Abbreviations, symbols, and conventions VOC

vocative

vP

little verb phrase

VP

verb phrase

W

weak (demonstrative)

X0

syntactic head

XP

phrase/phrasal category

xxi

Functional elements specific to Romanian .

infinitive marker



freestanding syntactic marker of the genitive

 

freestanding definite determiner functional preposition

 ˘.

additive (clitic) adverbial subjunctive marker

Conventions; symbols used in examples and representations -

separates morphs and the corresponding glosses (used in morph-bymorph segmentation)

.

separates multiple glosses of a single morph or word form (used when morph-by-morph segmentation is not necessary) separates a clitic from its host

= ≡ →

equivalent; marks syncretism (≡ indicates that the nominative form is syncretic with the accusative form) (dashed arrow) 

← √

(arrow) syntactic movement ellipsis

[...]

omission from an example

* XP*

unattested or ungrammatical example recursive/multiple projection

t

in examples, the segments reconstituted by editors trace (of movement)

s.v.

sub voce

r

recto (folio) verso (folio)

v

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

1 Word order and parameter change in Romanian An introduction . WORD ORDER VARIATION AND CHANGE IN ROMANIAN The focus of this monograph is the study of several interrelated phenomena that I take to reflect the most important word order changes in the passage from old Romanian (OR) to modern Romanian (MR). Chapters  and  focus on the structure of the sentential core. The analysis of inversion – V-Aux (a) and V-Cl structures (b) – and of discontiguous verbal clusters – interpolation (a) and scrambling (b) – mainly shows that there are relevant OR/MR differences in the height of verb raising along the clausal spine. Other related phenomena – e.g. the double, proclitic and enclitic, realization of pronominal clitics (); the intercalation of multiple constituents in the structure of complex predicates, between the modal verb and the bare short infinitive () – are also discussed, as they provide supporting evidence for the analyses of inversion and discontiguous verbal clusters. () a. Povesti-vor şi grăi-vor nedereptatea tell.=.. and speak.=.. injustice. ‘they will recount the injustice and speak of it’ (PH.–:v-r) b. Încungiura-mă vit¸ei mult¸i surround..=.. calves. many ‘Many calves were surrounding me’ (CP1.:v) () a. când va Domnedzeu căuta when .. God look.after. ‘when God will look after you’ (PO.:)

pre 

voi you..

b. (sângele mieu…), ce se derept mult¸i varsă blood. my which .. for many spill.. ‘my blood, which is spilled for many’ (CC1.:v) Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. First edition. Alexandru Nicolae. © Alexandru Nicolae . First published  by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Word order and parameter change in Romanian: An introduction

() te vei întoarce-te .. .. return.= .. ‘you will return’ (DPar.:II.r) sale dereage păcatul său () nu poate nimea cu faptele not can... nobody with deeds. his mend. sin. his ‘nobody is able to mend his sin with his own deeds’ (CC1.:v) The following two chapters focus on nominal structures. Determiner phrase (DP)internal word order is looser in OR than in MR; I argue that this is due to the existence of a low definite article () (Cornilescu and Nicolae c) during this stage of Romanian (chapter ). In the passage to MR, these structures, in which the definite article is not suffixed on the DP-initial adjective or noun, disappear. The consequence of the gradual elimination of low definite article structures is the tightening of DP-internal word order on the one hand and the general elimination of related structures (double definite constructions, edge-fronting, hyperbaton, etc.) on the other hand. () s-au oploşit în [DP vicleană făgăduint¸a lui] ..=.. sheltered in sly promise. his ‘he took shelter in his sly promise’ (CLM.–:v) Another feature of OR DPs is the greater flexibility of the prenominal domain; not only qualifying adjectives may occur in prenominal position, but also relational adjectives (a) and nominal arguments (b). The gradual restrictions in the accessibility of the prenominal domain are argued to derive from two distinct processes: higher noun (phrase) (N(P))-movement and the disappearance of edge-fronting. Subtler details concerning the different word order options of DP-internal adjectives relative to one another and to the head noun are discussed in chapter . () a. svint¸itul împărătescul scaun holy. imperial. seat ‘the holy imperial seat’ (DÎ.:XC) b. cu a lui Dumnădzău with .  God ‘with God’s help’ (CD.:IIIv)

agiutoriu help

In the same chapter I also analyse discontinuous DPs () and, by extension, other types of discontinuous constituents, especially discontinuous adjectival phrases (APs) (). OR is notably relevant in this respect, as it freely permits extraction from definite DPs (); this particularity contributes to the theoretical debate on the nature of left branch extraction and its relation to the syntax of definiteness (cf. Bošković ,  on the NP/DP-parameter).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Word order variation and change in Romanian () a. toată acmu [lumasca]i să lepădăm all now worldly. ˘ . shun.. ‘let us now shun all worldly cares’ (DDL.:)



[grije ti] care

b. [A duhului svântu]i dă-ne [DP ti darurile] . spirit.. holy give..=.. gifts.. ‘Give us the gifts of the holy spirit’ (FT.–:r) multe decât atâtea [a () [poftitoriu ti] mai eager more many than so.much . ‘eager to know more than this’ (CIst.–:v)

şti]i know.

Another phenomenon observable in the attested history of Romanian is the categorial specialization of demonstratives (chapter ). It is well known that MR has both weak and strong demonstratives (strong forms result from the augmentation of the weak forms with the particle ‑a), which have a particular distribution: weak demonstratives are prenominal determiners, while strong demonstratives are used both as pronouns and as postnominal determiners. Postnominal demonstratives are also subject to an adjacency constraint in MR: they need to be right-adjacent to the head noun that bears the definite article. By contrast, in OR weak demonstratives may be also be used as pronouns (), and adnominal strong demonstratives are neither obligatorily postnominal (a) nor obligatorily right-adjacent to a definite noun head (b). ()

Aceste zise marele împărat Alexandru these.w say... great. emperor Alexander ‘The great emperor Alexander said these (words)’ (A.:v)

() a. făcut-am [DP aceasta make.=.. this. ‘I made this letter of mine’ (DÎ.:X)

a mea  my

scrisoare letter

b. din [DP ¸t ara mea aceasta] from country. my this. ‘from this country of mine’ (PI.~:v) The combined effect of word order tightening (one facet of which is the gradual decline of edge-fronting) and of the categorial specialization of adnominal demonstratives is the emergence and consolidation of the adjectival article construction by the end of OR. This construction has a particular DP-internal pragmatic (i.e. information structure) role and represents a compensating strategy of MR that makes up for the tightening of DP-internal word order and for the gradual disappearance of fronting to the DP-edge. Along the way, the influence of foreign syntactic patterns is discussed for every phenomenon in the analysis of which it was advocated in previous scholarship (for details, see also §. in the present chapter).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Word order and parameter change in Romanian: An introduction

I did not find it necessary to address the word order of major constituents, as this topic has been thoroughly discussed in individual chapters of The Syntax of Old Romanian (see Pană Dindelegan :– for the subject; Nicula Paraschiv :– for the direct object; Nicula Paraschiv and Pană Dindelegan :– for the indirect object), along with other word order phenomena specific to OR (e.g. the short-lived existence of clefts in OR, on which see Pană Dindelegan :– and Gheorghe ; the generalized clefting strategy of MR is pseudo‑clefting). Nicolae () provides a brief empirical overview of OR to MR word order changes. A brief outline of the morphological system of OR is given in Maiden ().

. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In this section I briefly introduce the main theoretical tools employed in the analyses that follow. The framework adopted is Generative Grammar, the second version of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky  and subsequent work), in which syntactic relations are established by means of the operation Agree. The syntactic derivation is driven by the need to delete uninterpretable features (Chomsky , ). Kayne’s () Universal Base Hypothesis and Chomsky’s (, , and subsequent work) Phase Theory are assumed throughout the book. I adopt the widely accepted hypothesis that the clause is made up of three distinct domains, hierarchically ordered: CP > IP > vP. The CP (complementizer phrase), IP (inflectional phrase), and vP (little verb phrase) are viewed as complex domains, consisting of several projections or layers of projections. In the particular case of the CP, I adopt Rizzi’s split-CP hypothesis (see Rizzi  and subsequent work): the complementizer (C)-node is split into a high complementizer projection, ForceP, and a low complementizer projection, FinP; this represents the clausal left periphery and includes positions that accommodate constituents with particular information structure functions (topic and focus). I also adopt the cartographic approach (see Cinque  and subsequent work) and assume that the IP-domain consists of several hierarchically ordered inflectional fields that host projections involved in the valuation of mood, tense, and aspect features. The vP-domain represents the predicational domain, where arguments are merged and thetarelations established. Referential nominal expressions are DPs (Abney ; Longobardi ); the D-node may split into an outer D-head and an inner D-head, giving rise to a split-DP structure, with a DP-internal left periphery that has functions comparable to the clausal left periphery (Aboh ; Giusti ; Laenzlinger ; Cornilescu and Nicolae a). DP, CP, and vP are phasal domains and observe the phase impenetrability condition () (note that only strong, i.e. transitive vPs, are phasal in Chomsky ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Periodization and corpus ()



Phase impenetrability condition (Chomsky :) [Given structure [ZP Z…[HP α [H YP]]], with H and Z the heads of phases]: ‘The domain of H is not accessible to operations at ZP; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.’

With respect to feature structure, I follow Pesetsky and Torrego (), who distinguish between interpretability and valuation of features; this gives rise to a fourfold typology of features () (cf. also Adger and Svenonius , whose structure of features is compatible with Pesetsky and Torrego’s account). The symbols u and i stand for ‘uninterpretable’ and ‘interpretable’; an empty pair of brackets signals that the respective feature is unvalued; features participating in Agree bear the same numerical index. () [uF] []: uninterpretable, valued [uF] []: uninterpretable, unvalued

[iF] []: interpretable, valued [iF] []: interpretable, unvalued

Feature valuation is ensured by Agree or Internal Merge.1 In agreement with the feature typology adopted, I also take over Pesetsky and Torrego’s () featuresharing definition of Agree () (see Frampton and Gutmann  for a similar proposal). Agree establishes a link between positions, which is accessible throughout the derivation (observing phase boundaries, of course). ()

Agree (feature-sharing version) (Pesetsky and Torrego :) (i) An unvalued feature F (a Probe) on a head H at syntactic location α (Fα) scans its c‑command domain for another instance of F (a Goal) at location β (Fβ) with which to agree. (ii) Replace Fα with Fβ, so that the same feature is present in both locations.

Finer-grained details will be introduced along the way, when necessary.

. PERIODIZATION AND CORPUS As presented in the Romanian traditional literature (Gheție ; ILRL ; see Timotin , with references), OR represents a period in the history of (Daco-) Romanian roughly stretching from the beginning of the th century – which marks the earliest attested Romanian non-translated (DÎ – Documente și însemnări) and translated (PH.–, Hurmuzaki’s Book of Psalms) writings – to the end of the th century (Micu and Şincai’s Elementa lingua daco-romana sive valachicæ, ).

1

The Internal Merge option is not discussed in Pesetsky and Torrego’s () model adopted here. It is, however, implicitly permitted (Ian Roberts and David Pesetsky, p.c.) and explicitly employed (e.g. Rouveret ) in minimalist grammars.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Word order and parameter change in Romanian: An introduction

As also stressed by Hill and Alboiu (:xiv), this period, labelled ‘old Romanian’, actually corresponds to an ‘early modern’ period from a more general Romance perspective, since other Romance languages have much older textual records. Romanian scholars typically divide OR into two subperiods, /– and –, on the basis of linguistic and philological evidence (see Ghet¸ie :– and references therein); several phenomena investigated in the present book support this subdivision. OR was employed in a region largely corresponding to present-day Romania, the Republic of Moldova, and a stretch of land from southern Ukraine (northern Bukovina). In the Middle Ages this region consisted of three (administratively separate) provinces: Transylvania, Wallachia (Rom. T ¸ ara Românească), and Moldova. The three historical provinces were subject to different linguistic and cultural influences such as Hungarian, Old Church Slavonic, medieval Latin (see Stan b:§, with references). The OR corpus on which I ground my analyses represents a subset of the texts surveyed in Pană Dindelegan’s Syntax of Old Romanian (SOR ) and consists of non-translated texts written directly in Romanian (dubbed ‘original texts’ in Romanian traditional scholarship) and of translations from the whole area in which OR was used. Timotin () presents a comprehensive discussion of the period analysed, of the typology, dating, and localization of the texts that make up the corpus, and of the editions employed. Some of the editions in the corpus are also included in Corpus electronic al textelor româneşti vechi (–) (The Electronic Corpus of Old Romanian Texts (–); visit http://www.textvechi.ro/home), set up by Alexandru Gafton at the ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University, Iaşi and by Adina Chirilă at the West University of Timişoara.

. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS In the textual analysis, I carefully distinguish non-translated writings from translations in order to minimize the degree to which extraneous parametric options play a part in the syntactic conformation of OR. At the same time, translated texts are not avoided, as they provide one of the best means to assess the relevance of diachronic language contact, one of the stated goals of the present monograph. A subset of the texts has been analysed from a quantitative perspective; extremely short textual testimonies (e.g. ÎSL.–) have been used only for expository purposes, not for quantitative studies. Since no annotated corpus of OR is available, it is also important to mention that all the examples to be used for illustration or in the statistical analyses have been excerpted manually (The Electronic Corpus mentioned in the previous section does not have an annotation tool). Since one of the explicit goals of the book, as stated in the Preface, is the analysis of phenomena that are quantitatively relevant for the syntax of OR, it is necessary to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Methodological problems



clarify the concept of quantitative relevance. A set of specific criteria have been employed in order to qualify a phenomenon as ‘quantitatively relevant’: (i) attestation in more than one text; (ii) attestation in non-translated texts and in translations; (iii) statistically significant attestation. This strategy allows us to properly distinguish between accidental cases of linguistic variation and phenomena that, despite having a low frequency, are genuinely relevant for the inner workings of the syntax of OR. An example of the first type of attestations is the double realization of the auxiliary verb (preverbal and postverbal), which has only four attestations in one single text (CB.–) in the corpus examined; in light of the very rich attestation of analytic structures in OR texts, these four occurrences of auxiliary doubling do not tell us anything relevant about the syntax of auxiliaries in OR. On the other hand, the double realization of pronominal clitics (preverbal and postverbal) (see () above) can be considered a phenomenon relevant for the syntax of the period: in spite of its low frequency, it is constantly present in all types of texts (nontranslated texts and translations) in a given period. Another important methodological problem is the management of parametrically (P)-ambiguous strings. In the distributional analyses and quantitative studies, I have examined examples and textual samples with a functional structure rich enough to ensure proper syntactic diagnosing. For example, synthetic verbs () unaccompanied by pronominal clitics are compatible both with pronominal proclisis (a) and with pronominal enclisis (b) in the same context (a declarative main clause) and in the same text (NT.); note that the Tense–Aspect–Mood (TAM) and φ-feature specification of the verbs in examples () and () is the same: indicative, simple past, third-person singular; as will be shown in chapter , pronominal proclisis and pronominal enclisis are associated with different verb-raising options. () Atunci trimise pre el în then send...  him() in ‘Then he sent him into his house’ (NT.:v)

casa house.

lui his

trimease () a. Căpitanul ştiind lucrul, îl captain. know. thing. ... send... la Filix deregătoriul to Felix governor. ‘As he knew the thing, the captain sent him to Felix the governor’ (NT.:v) b. Trimise-i cătră Iisus send...=... to Jesus ‘He sent them to Jesus saying’ (NT.:r)

zicând say.

Similar problems are encountered when the example chosen for illustration is too short. Consider example ():

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Word order and parameter change in Romanian: An introduction

() nesăt¸ioasă greedy

hirea nature.

domnilor rulers..

At first sight, example () is a low definite article construction (cf. example () above). However, a closer inspection based on a lengthier string () reveals that the word order in () actually represents a predicative adjective plus a subject in a copula-less inverted exclamative structure: () O! nesăt¸ioasă hirea domnilor spre Oh greedy nature. rulers.. towards lăt¸ire şi avut¸ie oarbă. expansion and wealth blind ‘Oh, how greedy is the nature of rulers for expansion and blind wealth!’ (CLM.‑:r) The low definite article construction is properly diagnosed in argumental determiner phrases (DPs) () or in DPs embedded in prepositional phrases (PPs) (see () above), where the prenominal non-definite adjective and the definite noun make up a constituent. () să potoale Vasilie vodă [DP sunate zarvele], ˘ . temper.. Basil voivode noisy rumours. pre fecioru-său […] l-au tremis  son-his ...=.. send. la Țarigrad to Constantinople ‘in order for Basil voivode to temper the noisy rumours, he sent his son to Constantinople’ (CLM.–:v) Although manual excerption and analysis reduce the language sample (in contrast to automatic means of data processing), they also ensure a more accurate and qualitatively superior examination of the data.

. THE ISSUE OF ‘FOREIGN’ SYNTACTIC FEATURES A hypothesis frequently put forward in traditional scholarship is that OR writings are tributary to foreign syntactic patterns (see Stan b:§, with references; Gafton  for religious writings). Word order has been considered one of the main areas where, in the particular case of translated texts, foreign patterns had a consistent influence on OR texts, especially in the th century. The following quotation from Densusianu’s seminal History of the Romanian Language is illustrative: ‘Not knowing the rigours of a syntax imposed by the literary tradition, the language of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Glosses and examples



th century manifests a great degree of freedom in this respect [= word order]; the constituents of the clause connect erratically, sometimes amazing one through their unexpected, even weird, character’ (Densusianu , II:). As the proportion of non-translated texts is very low in the th century (it consists mostly of the texts collected in DÎ, alongside a few prologues and forewords of religious translations), it is important to employ a method that allows one to identify the syntactic features – in this case, the word order options – that genuinely characterize the language of the period and thus to reduce the import of foreign syntactic models. This method is readily available. Dragomirescu () has proposed an algorithm that determines the degree to which a foreign model may influence the syntax of another language and she has applied it to OR by taking into account the cultural history of this language and its successive adstrata. Thus the possibility that a syntactic feature – in this case, a word order pattern – appears to be an effect of the influence of a foreign syntactic model is gradually reduced if the feature in question – the word order pattern of interest – is attested (i) in (late) Latin, (ii) in other old Romance languages or dialects, (iii) in OR non-translated texts, and (iv) in the sub‑Danubian varieties (Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and IstroRomanian), considered in traditional scholarship to be ‘historical dialects’ of Romanian. To the extent that data are available, this algorithm will be implicitly observed throughout the book.

. GLOSSES AND EXAMPLES The citation of examples follows the conventions established in SOR (). All examples have been glossed according to the Leipzig Glossing Rules and translated into English. The source of each example is given after the translation. The sources of examples are indicated through a complex notation, which consists of an acronym of the title followed by a date of publication (when known) or of composition, often tentative and usually established through philological research. For example, in examples ()–() here, NT. stands for the New Testament published in  in Alba Iulia. All the sources have been alphabetically recorded in the Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts. Examples in foreign languages have been reproduced with minimal adaptations of the glosses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

2 Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar . INTRODUCTION

..    This chapter focuses on one of the phenomena that strongly distinguish OR from MR: the use of V-Aux (verb–auxiliary), V-Cl (verb–clitic), and V-Cl-Aux structures () in non-imperative/directive (/jussive) contexts in OR, alongside Aux-V, Cl-V, and Cl-Aux-V structures () (other options, more residual, are (Cl)-Aux-XP*-V and Cl-XP*-V; these are the object of the next chapter). The structures in (), which were diachronically eliminated, have been traditionally discussed under the label ‘inversion’; I will continue to use this term, as it will be shown that the V-Aux/V-Cl/V-ClAux word order derivationally obtains through the movement of the lexical verb across the auxiliary (a), the pronominal clitic (b), and the clitic + auxiliary cluster (c). (For discussions on the derivation of inversion, see Dragomirescu ; Alboiu, Hill, and Sitaridou ; Zafiu ; Nicolae c: §IV; Hill and Alboiu : §§ and . See also §§.. and . in this chapter.) () a. Povesti-vor şi grăi-vor nedereptatea tell.=.. and speak.=.. injustice. ‘they will recount the injustice and speak of it’ (PH. :v-r) b. Doamne, de vei vrea, god. if .. want. pot¸i-mă curăt¸i can...=.. clean. ‘God, if you desire, you can forgive me’ (NT.:r) c. Pusu-ne-am şi degetele mai jos put.=...=.. also thumbs. more down ‘We have also put our thumbs below’ (DÎ.:V)

Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. First edition. Alexandru Nicolae. © Alexandru Nicolae . First published  by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Introduction () a. şi am dat toată partea and .. give. all share. ‘and I gave my entire share of the estate’ (DÎ.:X)

mea my

de of



moşie estate

b. Şi acolo ieşiră  angheli şi mă and there exit...  archangels and .. certară scold... ‘and two archangels came out of there and scolded me’ (A.:r) c. l-au bătut ...=.. beat. ‘and Alexander beat him’ (A.:r)

Alexandru Alexander

..    This chapter is organized as follows. The next section (.) provides the necessary background (the height and strategy of V‑movement in Romanian and a brief characterization of old Romance ‘relaxed’ V systems) for the analysis developed in the remainder of the chapter. Section . focuses on OR inversion, providing an internal analysis (based on syntactic diagnostics) and a quantitative analysis, both of which support the hypothesis that OR inversion represents the instantiation of a residual old Romance ‘relaxed’ V grammar. Section . places the results of the analysis in a broader (Romance and Balkan) comparative perspective. In the syntactic analysis, I adopt the generally accepted idea that finite clauses consist of three hierarchical domains: CP > IP > vP. With respect to the IP-domain, I adopt the split-IP hypothesis (Pollock ; Belletti ; Thráinsson ) and its subsequent developments (Giorgi and Pianesi ; Cinque ; Schifano ), according to which the IP-domain consists of three layers of functional projections: the Mood-field, the Tense-field, and the Aspect-field1 (see Schifano , with references). Since my discussion concentrates on verb movement across domains, finer-grained parts of the entire IP-cartography will be laid out only when necessary. As for the CP-domain, I adopt Rizzi’s () split-CP hypothesis: the C-node is split into a higher Force head and a lower finiteness (Fin) head; the syntactic space projected in-between ForceP and FinP represents the clausal left periphery and hosts fronted constituents with particular discourse-related properties (foci and topics). Negation is high in Romanian, and marks the boundary between the

1

[MoodSpeech act Mood-field . . . [Moodepistemic [TPast/Future Tense-Field . . . [TAnterior [Aspterminative Aspfield . . . (Schifano , ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

CP-domain and the IP-domain (i.e. NegP > IP) (Zanuttini ). With respect to pronominal clitics, I will adopt the hypothesis that clitics may occupy the left edge of the three clausal functional domains2 (Benincà and Tortora , ; Tortora ), the locus of cliticization being subject to cross-linguistic (and, as will be shown here,3 diachronic) variation; in MR, pronominal clitics are IP-oriented (Manoliu Manea :; Iliescu :–; Hill and Alboiu ) and occupy dedicated projections, labelled Pers(on)P* (Săvescu Ciucivara ). The emerging clausal configuration is given in (): ()

ForceP > TopP* > FocP > FinP > NegP > PersP* > IP {MoodP > TP > AspP} > vP

..  The following claims will be defended throughout the chapter: (i) The structures with postverbal auxiliaries (V-Aux and V-Cl-Aux: see (a) and (c)) are derived via V-to-C movement. By contrast, in OR, but not in MR, V-Cl structures (b) are systematically ambiguous between a V-to-C analysis and a V-to-I analysis, as there is evidence that, alongside an inflection (I)-oriented cliticization site, a low, vP-edge cliticization site is also available in OR (and also in other Romance varieties: see Tortora , ; Ledgeway and Lombardi ; Benincà and Tortora ). (ii) In the first OR stage (up until ), the internal and, more importantly, the external syntax of inverted structures shows the characteristic signature of an old Romance V grammar (see §.. here). After , inversion (already residual in the th century) is gradually reanalysed as a mechanism for marking and licensing focalization, a development similar to the reanalysis of roll-up movement as edgefronting in the history of Latin (Ledgeway :–; b). In consequence, we witness a diachronic change internal to OR. The analysis proposed here reconciles two distinct analyses put forward in the investigation of OR inversion: the V analysis (Nicolae c) and the V-to-Foc (focus) analysis (Alboiu, Hill, and Sitaridou ; Hill and Alboiu ). Both analyses represent streams of research currently pursued in Romance diachronic linguistics. (iii) There are several points of contrast between old Romance V and Germanic V on the one hand, and old Romance V and OR V on the other. In the particular case of Romanian (old, but also modern), V-to-C movement exclusively manifests 2 I remain agnostic as to whether clitics move to or are base-generated in their surface position (see Roberts ), although the examples of multiple spell-out of clitics (i.e. the double realization of pronominal clitics) discussed in §... favour a movement-based analysis. 3 There is compelling evidence that vP-edge cliticization site is active in OR (§...), and, as shown in Ledgeway (b), is exceptionally activated in certain analytic structures in MR with the accusative feminine singular clitic o: am văzut-o (.. see.=... ‘I saw her’).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



itself as movement of the lexical verb to the C-domain (cf. ()), regardless of its trigger; as will be shown throughout the chapter, auxiliaries preserve their position in the IP-domain. Thus, in contrast to continental Germanic, where it is a finite constituent (either the auxiliary or the finite verb) that undergoes movement to the C-domain, in Romanian the C-domain is targeted by the lexical verb, regardless of its finiteness. This particular realization of V-to-C movement is shared by Romanian with other Balkan languages (e.g. Bulgarian, Serbian) (Rivero ), and is also available as an option with analytic forms in other medieval Romance varieties (old Spanish: Rivero ; Mensching ; old (Galician-)Portuguese: Rivero ; Mensching ; old Italian: Franco ; Poletto ; old French: Buridant ), yet alongside other strategies of accessing the C-domain, such as Aux-to-C movement (old Spanish: Rivero ; old Italian: Roberts ; Poletto ). While the pattern with pronominal enclitics (b) is not derivationally problematic, the patterns with enclitic auxiliaries in (a) and (c) are standardly derived through Rivero’s () Long Head Movement operation (a derivation also tacitly adopted in Hill and Alboiu ) – a solution that raises both empirical and theoretical problems. I will argue that this particular distribution of V-to-C movement in Romanian, old and modern alike, falls out from the V-raising strategy adopted by Romanian: V-movement proceeds through specifiers (i.e. phrasal movement). Thus heads remain in situ, while phrases move; under V-to-C movement, auxiliaries – which are clitics (Avram ) and have been analysed as heads merged in dedicated heads in the inflectional domains (Ledgeway a; Nicolae c; Hill and Alboiu ) – will be crossed over by the lexical verb, which undergoes phrasal movement (see §.. for details). The analysis supported here also derives some of the observed contrasts between OR V and Germanic V.

. BACKGROUND This section lays out the necessary background for the diachronic analysis that follows: the height and strategy of V-movement in MR (§..), and nature of old Romance V grammars (§..).

..       :    The general verb-raising option of MR is V-to-I movement (Dobrovie-Sorin ; Avram ; Cornilescu ; Alboiu and Motapanyane ; Alboiu ; Avram and Hill ; Giurgea ; Cornilescu and Nicolae ; Ledgeway a; Schifano , , , ; Nicolae c). V-to-I movement is diagnosed by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

the classic tests of Emonds () and Pollock (): the lexical verb occurs to the left of well- and often-type adverbials and subject floating quantifiers, and to the right of the clausal negator nu (‘not’) and pronominal clitics: () Părinții mei nu merg des parents. my not go... often ‘My parents don’t often go to my grandparents’

la at

bunici. grandparents

îl ascultau toții pe povestitor. () Copiiii children. ... listen... all  storyteller ‘The children all listened to the storyteller’ Research pursuing Cinque’s () cartographic programme revealed that, under the hypothesis that the IP-domain consists of several syntactic fields, the Romanian verb targets the highest [+V] projection of the IP, namely a Mood-projection, as it precedes aspect (Asp)-oriented adverbs of the always-type, T-oriented adverbs of the already-type, and Mood-oriented adverbs of the probably-type (Schifano , ; Nicolae c):4 () Ion le confundă probabil / deja / întotdeauna John ... confuse... probably already always pe cele două surori.  the two sisters ‘John is probably / already / always confusing the two sisters’ In contrast to what we find in Romance languages like French, V-to-I movement is available cross-paradigmatically in Romanian: in analytic structures too, the auxiliary and the lexical verb occupy I-related positions5 (Cornilescu ; Nicolae c), as shown by the fact that they precede the aforementioned diagnostic elements for V-movement; phrasal elements (XPs) do not intervene in the auxiliary–lexical verb cluster – but syntactic heads (X0) do (see the subsequent discussion here).

4 The preverbal placement of most of the diagnostic adverbs for V-movement is always possible, but in this word order the adverbials occupy CP-domain left periphery positions (Schifano ), as shown by the fact that they precede Fin0-complementizer să, as well as other elements that occupy the border between the CP and the IP domain:

nu le (i) [ . . . ] probabil / deja / întotdeauna să probably already always ˘ . not ... confunde pe cele două surori confuse..  the two sisters 5 The structures with passive auxiliary be have not been taken into account due to the different morphosyntactic nature of this auxiliary; in contrast to all the other auxiliaries that lexicalize TAM heads, the passive auxiliary be itself inflects for the TAM categories, just like lexical verbs; furthermore, the clustering effects shown by the non-passive analytic structures are not encountered in the passive (see also §..).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



() Părinții mei nu au mers parents. my not .. go. des (*mers) la bunici. often go. at grandparents ‘My parents didn’t often go to my grandparents’ () Copiiii îl vor asculta children. ... .. listen. povestitor. toții (*asculta) pe all listen.  storyteller ‘The children will all listen to the storyteller’ () Ion le-a confundat probabil / John ...= .. confuse. probably întotdeauna (*confundat) pe cele două surori. always confuse.  the two sisters ‘John probably / already / always confused the two sisters’

deja / already

Movement to a high IP-position also characterizes clausal infinitives (Nicolae c): () obiceiul de [a le confunda probabil / deja / habit. of . ... confuse. probably already întotdeauna (*confunda) pe cele două surori] always confuse.  the two sisters ‘the habit of probably / already / always confusing the two sisters’ In MR finite clauses, V-to-C movement – manifested as V-Cl / V-Aux / V-Cl-Aux – is triggered by a [+directive] feature exclusively in matrix clauses, being available with imperatives (a), conditional constructions (b) (see Onu  for a typology) and main-clause subjunctives used for cursing (c), or as directive subjunctives in religious sermons;6 in a stylistically marked usage, verbs in the indicative may occur in inverted structures ().

6 Given the conservative and stereotypical nature of the religious text and discourse, subjunctives in the latter category are syntactic archaisms, preserved in this register from OR. Notice the alternation in the usage of să (B) and să-less (A) subjunctives in The Lord’s Prayer in CC2. (i); the contemporary version of the prayer (ii) features only să-less (A) subjunctives (ii).

(i) Tatălŭ nostru ce eşti în ceri, sfințească-se (A) numele tău, să vie (B) împărățiia ta, fie (A) voia ta [ . . . ] (CC2.:) (ii) Tatăl nostru, Care eşti în ceruri, sfint¸ească-se numele Tău, Vie împărăt¸ia Ta; facă-se voia Ta (www. bibliaortodoxa.ro) ‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth [ . . . ]’ (KJV, www.biblegateway.com)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

() a. Citeşte-mi read.=.. ‘Read me the letter!’

scrisoarea! letter.

b. Găsi-l-ar find.=...=.. ‘May the devil find him!’

ăl that

c. Ducă-se go..≡=..≡ ‘He/They should go away!’

pustii! desert

pe on

din from

baltă! lake

() Făcutu-s-a! Cândva am do.=..=.. once ..(≡) trăit într-o Românie democrată! live. in=a Romania democratic ‘It was done! We once lived in a democratic Romania’ (http://comunitate.ziare.com, ) With non-finite forms, the clausal gerund is characterized by obligatory V-to-C movement (Niculescu ), as shown by pronominal enclisis (along with other diagnostics, e.g. the incorporation of clitic adverbials): () Văzându-l Maria pe Ion, see.=... Mary  John să plece. ˘ . leave.. ‘Having seen John, Mary decided to leave’

a ..

hotărât decide.

After this sketchy characterization of V-raising in MR, it is incumbent upon me to provide answers to two questions. (i) What is the strategy accounting for the exclusive movement of the lexical verb to C – a synthetic form with imperatives and subjunctives, as in (a) and (c); a non-finite form (a participle or an infinitive) with conditional constructions used for cursing, as in (b), and, residually, with indicatives, as in () – across IP-related functional elements (pronominal clitics and auxiliaries)? Synthetic structures involving V-Cl inversion are not problematic, as pronominal clitics are categorially [-V], hence they may be bypassed by the higher C-probing head without incurring minimality violations. However, analytic structures are genuinely problematic, as the lexical verb raises across the auxiliary; assuming that auxiliary verbs are exponents of TAM categories that occupy head positions in the IP-domain, the fact that the lexical verb is attracted to the C-domain across the auxiliary is problematic. Answering this question is crucial for the diachronic analysis that follows. Two lines of analysis have been pursued in the literature: Rivero’s () Long Head Movement (=LHM) operation (cf. also Lema and Rivero ; Rivero , , )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



and the phrasal movement analysis in the wake of Koopman and Szabolcsi (). There is also an alternative to the classical phrasal movement analysis, more recently pursued in the literature, which succeeds in empirically accounting for the results of, without running into the problems raised by, the classical phrasal movement analysis. This is the V0-to-Spec (specifier) analysis (Vicente ). Rivero (:) characterizes the LHM type of movement as follows: ‘in essence, LHM constructions involve Head-movement to C0 of the non-finite V0/Aux0 complementing the finite Aux0, skipping it’ (emphasis added). From the perspective of current syntactic theory, under LHM the non-finite verb directly undergoes movement from the vP-domain to the CP‑domain, bypassing the inflectional domain, as also explicit from Rivero’s (:) representation of LHM:

CP

()

C0 V0

IP Aux0

VP

LHM

t

(Rivero 1993:223)

This analysis is immediately contradicted by the empirical data of Romanian – modern, but also old. Romanian possesses a class of five clitic adverbials mai, cam, şi, prea, and tot, which are X0 elements merging in Asp-heads (Cornilescu and Cosma ; Nicolae c; but cf. Giurgea ) of the IP-domain (see Mîrzea Vasile  for an overview). Consider mai, which has been studied in greater detail:7 mai is an additive adverbial (Donazzan and Mardale ), which tampers with the aspectual reading of the predicate (it may express repetition, intensity, continuation, etc.). Mai – as well as the other clitic adverbials – may be interpolated in the IP‑field, either between the auxiliary and the lexical verb in analytic structures (a) or between the functional elements occupying a high position in the IP-domain and the synthetic verb (a); full XPs (see (b), (b), and also ()–() above) cannot occur in this position, this distribution directly supporting the analysis of clitic adverbials as X0-elements.

7 That mai merges in the IP-domain is shown also by the fact it cannot adjoin bare short infinitives in the modal putea (‘can, be able to’) configuration (i) (it can only adjoin the higher verb, the modal), although it may freely adjoin bare short infinitives (ii); the constraint in (i) is thus of a syntactic nature. The bare short infinitive in the modal configuration was analysed as being v-Voice* phase (Nicolae d); therefore, in the modal configuration, the infinitive does not project up to I/Asp, which would syntactically permit the incorporation of light adverbials of the mai type.

(i)

(ii) va / ar mai veni Mai poate (*mai) veni.  can...  come. .. ..  veni. ‘He can still come / come again’ ‘(s)he will / would still come / come again’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

() a. Ion a mai John ..  ‘John visited me again’

venit come.

b. Ion a (*ieri) John .. yesterday ‘John visited me yesterday’

la at

mine. me

venit come.

(*ieri) yesterday

la at

mine. me

() a. Nu-l mai vreau. not  want... ‘I no longer want it’ b. Nu-l (*acum) vreau not now want... ‘I don’t want it now’

(acum). now

Under V-to-C movement, mai is incorporated into the structure of the lexical verb and undergoes inversion along with it; the lexical verb may be the synthetic verb in the imperative (a), the lexical verb in analytic conditional constructions used for cursing (b), or the non-finite gerund (c) (more details on the position and status of prefixal ne- are given below): () a. Mai citeşte-mi din carte.  read..=.. from book ‘Keep on reading to me from the book!’ b. Mai lua-te-ar  take.=..=.. ‘You should really go to hell!’ c. Nemaivăzându-l Maria --see.=... Mary ‘No longer seeing John, Mary ( . . . )’

naiba! devil.

pe 

Ion, [ . . . ] John

The behaviour of mai undeniably shows that V-movement does not proceed as advocated by the LHM analysis (i.e. skipping the IP-domain), but rather the verb transits the IP-domain, as will be shown later. An alternative account is the phrasal V-movement analysis, which stems from the seminal work of Koopman and Szabolcsi () and which has been recently adopted in the analysis of several phenomena involving V-to-C movement in Romance (stylistic inversion in old Italian and in old and modern French, subject clitic inversion and (hyper)complex inversion in French, etc.; see Pollock ; Meklenborg Salvesen ; Tescari Neto ; Cinque ; Kayne and Pollock , , ; Poletto and Pollock ), including Romanian (Nicolae c; cf. also Laenzlinger and Soare ). In a nutshell, the lexical verb moves through specifiers; this predicts that certain heads (i.e. auxiliaries) are crossed over by the moving lexical verbs, while others (e.g. mai-type clitic adverbials) left-adjoin the verb whose intermediary landing site

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



is the specifier position of the aspect phrase (AspP) with mai in the head position, and travel along with the verb under V-to-C movement; phrases cannot be crossed over. In what follows, I discuss the empirical arguments that support this account, without going into the technical details of the analysis (for reasons of space; a full analysis can be found in Nicolae c: §III). (a) Since clitic adverbials are a relevant diagnostic, it is important to understand how they adjoin the verb. Adopting the view that they are heads merged in Asp, under the phrasal movement analysis they get incorporated into the structure of the lexical verb via adjunction to the left (the derivation in (i–ii) depicts this step), giving rise to the word order [clitic adverbial > V] (see Vicente :ff. on headto-spec movement); the complex verb undergoes further movement, either to a higher IP projection or to the C-domain (iii). I adopt the hypothesis that pronominal clitics are reduced nominal expressions, φPs (Déchaine and Wiltschko ), occupying Spec,PersP (Săvescu Ciucivara ). The head movement analysis predicts the word order [V > clitic adverbial], which is never possible. ()

Mai citeşte-mi! mai read.imp.2sg=cl.dat.1sg ‘Keep on reading to me!’ (i) AspPcontinuative VP

(ii)

Asp’

citeşte

VP

Asp0 | mai

(iii)

AspPcontinuative

…

mai citeşte

Asp’ Asp0 | mai

…

CP VP

mai citeşte

C’ C0

PersP ϕP -l

(IP>…) AspP VP

Asp’

mai citeşte (b) Another piece of strong evidence for the phrasal movement analysis comes from the behaviour of V-to-C movement in the presence of negation. A well-known

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar claim is that in Romanian (Avram ; Isac and Jakab ) – and in Romance more generally (Roberts ) – clausal negation blocks V-to-C movement. Romanian negative imperatives exhibit obligatory pronominal proclisis8 (and, in the singular, the infinitive is used as a ‘surrogate’), a sign that V‑to-C movement does not take place; compare the positive and the negative imperatives in ():

() a. Citeşte-mi read.=..

scrisoarea! letter.

b. Nu îmi citi not .. read. ‘(Don’t) read me the letter!’

scrisoarea! letter.

Romanian negative gerunds show that this generalization is not accurate: V-to-C movement is obligatory, as shown by pronominal enclisis (a); gerunds are negated by means of the prefix ne-, which has been analysed as a head merging in Neg0 (see Nicolae  and references there). The fact that the gerund is clausal, projecting up to the C-level, is confirmed by the existence of independent nominative subjects with gerunds; obligatory negative concord in the presence of n‑words and NPIs (b) shows that the negative form of the gerund is an instance of clausal negation (Nicolae ). () a. Nevăzându-l Maria pe Ion, -see.=... Mary  John decis să plece. decide. ˘ . leave.. ‘As Mary didn’t see John, they decided to leave’

ei they

b. *Venind // √Nevenind nimeni / picior de om come. -come. nobody a living soul ‘As nobody / anyone at all was not present there ( . . . )’

au ..

(...)

These different V-to-C movement options stem from the different negators employed in the formation of negative imperatives and gerunds: the full adverbial nu, which is an XP, with the imperative (Nicolae ; cf. Barbu ) vs the prefix ne-, which is an X0, with the gerund (Nicolae ). Assuming the clausal structure in () , nu merges in Spec,NegP, while ne- merges in Neg0; thus, while the XP nu blocks V-to-C movement as it induces a locality violation (a), the X0 ne- left-adjoins the verb in an intermediary landing site, being incorporated like clitic adverbs (cf. (i–ii)), and undergoes further movement to C (b).9

8

Romance languages with discontinuous or postverbal negation do not display this asymmetry (Poletto :). 9 That an incorporation of the same type is at play is shown by the adjunction of ne- to the left of the clitic adverbials (mai, prea, . . . ): / Nemaipreavăzându-l Maria (i) Nemaivăzându-l --see.=... ---see.=... Mary ‘As Mary no longer saw John too often ( . . . )’

pe 

Ion ( . . . ) John

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



() a. Nu îmi citi not cl.dat.1sg read.inf

CP C’ C0

NegP AvP

Neg’

nu

Neg0

PersP Pers’

ϕP îmi

Pers0

IP VP

I’

citi

b.

Nevăzându-l neg-see.ger=cl.acc.3sg.m CP

VP

C’

ne-văzând

C0

NegP VP

ne-văzând

Neg’

2

Neg0 ne-

PersP ϕP -l

Pers’ Pers0

IP VP

3

1

văzând

I’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

Summing up this discussion, negation and clitic adverbials teach us an important lesson about the V-movement strategy at work in the derivation of V-to-C movement: V-raising is blocked by [+V] phrasal elements; by contrast, X0-elements left-adjoin the verb and travel along with it to C. In conclusion, V-to-C movement exclusively targets the lexical verb, and movement proceeds through specifiers. An analysis alternative to classical phrasal movement, revamped by Harizanov () in his account of Bulgarian participle fronting (also traditionally derived through LHM), is V0-to-Spec. This analysis (whose origin can be traced back to Kayne ), developed in detail by Vicente (), combines the head movement and the remnant movement approaches to V‑raising by allowing head-to-spec movement. Despite solving an important empirical problem (i.e. movement affects a single head, the lexical verb, a difficult technical problem in all post-Koopman and Szabolcsi  analyses), it raises other empirical problems (e.g. locality of movement, for example in the incorporation of clitic adverbials and negative heads) and theoretical predicaments (e.g. violation of Structure Preservation, Emonds ; violation of Chain Uniformity, Chomsky , ). To sum up, regardless of its exact technical implementation, the intuition that V‑movement proceeds through specifiers appears to be on the right track, deriving the observed distribution. (ii) The second issue that needs to be tackled is the C-related position targeted by the verb under V-to-C movement. There is direct and indirect distributional evidence that the lexical V undergoes movement to FinP. Direct evidence is given by the behaviour of inverted subjunctives (c). With the exception of inverted subjunctives, the subjunctive is introduced by the socalled particle să (glossed  ˘ .). Both traditional grammars (GLR ; GALR ; GBLR ) and generative studies (Dobrovie-Sorin , ; Barbosa ; Alboiu and Motapanyane ; Cornilescu ; Paoli ; Jordan ; Pană Dindelegan, Dragomirescu, and Nedelcu :; Cotfas ; Nicolae d:§IV; Gheorghe ; Zafiu ) discuss its mixed, inflectional, and complementizer properties: on the one hand, it shows strong adjacency effects with I-related elements to its right; on the other, it is invariable and occurs to the left of negation, an indication of its complementizer status. I will adopt and support Stan’s () account: under the split-C hypothesis, să is a low C-head, i.e. Fin0. Thus să precedes all the elements of the inflectional domain (negation, pronominal clitics, auxiliaries) (), co-occurs with (and follows) wh-elements () assumed to occupy higher positions in the left periphery and with Force0 complementizers (), and may even undergo recomplementation or complementizer doubling (cf. Fontana :–) in main and embedded clauses () (Nicolae c:). With respect to (a), note that ca-insertion is conditioned by the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



presence of să, the elements occupying the space between ca and să being topics and foci (Stan ). () a. Trebuie să must.. ˘ . ‘You must not come’

nu not

vii. come..

b. Voiam să want... ˘ . ‘I wish I had seen you’ () a. Nu ştiu unde not know... where ‘I don’t know where to go’

te ..

fi .

ă ˘ .

merg. go..

văzut. see.

b. Caut un om care să ştie engleză. search... a man who  ˘ . know.. English ‘I am looking for someone who knows English’ () a. Vreau ca mâine să want... that tomorrow ˘ . ‘It is tomorrow that I want you to come’ b. Nu ştiu dacă not know... if ‘I don’t know if I should leave’

să ˘ .

vii. come..

plec. leave..

() (Mă tem) Să nu cumva .. fear... ˘ . not somehow să pleci! ˘ . leave.. ‘I’m afraid that you could leave’ / ‘Don’t you dare leave!’ The inverted subjunctive (b) (diagnosed by pronominal enclisis) blocks să-insertion (); inversion is not permitted in the presence of să (i.e. to the right of să) either ().10

10 Hypothetical inversion structures (e.g. Engl. Had I known . . . for If I had known . . . ), which are quite common cross‑linguistically and are also available in Romance (witness It. Potessi farlo . . . for Se potessi farlo . . . ‘If I could have done it . . . ’) (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.), are not available in OR and MR. Besides the conditional, this hypothetical value may be expressed by the perfect subjunctive (i) in structures without inversion.

(i) Să fi ştiu  ˘ . be. know. ‘Had I known that . . . ’

eu că . . . I that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

() a. Să ˘ .

se ..≡

ducă go..≡

b. Ducă-se go..≡=..≡ ‘He/They should go away!

pe on

pe on

pustii! desert

pustii! desert

() *ducă-sa˘ -se go..≡= ˘ .=..≡ () *Să ˘ .

ducă-se go..≡=..≡

Under the assumption that V-movement proceeds through specifiers, the distribution depicted in ()–() clearly indicates that the moved V targets Spec, FinP. A Doubly Filled COMP Filter (Chomsky and Lasnik ) or Generalized Doubly Filled COMP Filter (Koopman ), which prevents the simultaneous lexicalization of the specifier and of the head of a C‑projection, is responsible for the absence of să under V-to-C movement. Indirect evidence for the fact that V-to-C movement targets FinP, not a higher projection of the C-domain, is given by the presence of left peripheral constituents to the left of inverted forms (note that these preverbal constituents are not leftdislocated or hanging topics): a subject (a), a clitic doubled and DOM-ed DO (b), an adjunct (c), etc. () a. Ioane, tu du-te John. you. go..=.. ‘John, you go to school!’

la to

şcoală! school

b. Pe Ion mânca-l-ar  John eat.=...=. . ‘May John be eaten by the dogs!

câinii! dogs.

c. Doctore, mâine examineaz-o doctor. tomorrow examine..=... pe bunică-mea!  grandma ‘Doctor, examine my grandma tomorrow!’ To sum up, the following should be retained for the diachronic analysis proposed in §.: (i) the general V-raising option of Romanian is V-to-I movement; V-to-C movement is triggered by the [+directive] feature in a restricted set of contexts and may be also morphologically determined (with clausal gerunds);

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Background



(ii) V-movement proceeds through specifiers, as shown by the fact that XPs induce blocking effects, while X0s do not (they may either be skipped or incorporated); (iii) V-to-C movement targets (Spec,)FinP.

..       A well-known property of old Romance varieties (still apparently retained in some Ræto-Romance varieties under Germanic influence: see Poletto ) that distinguishes them from their modern descendants is the V stage (Benincà , , ; Vanelli , ; Adams ; Fontana , ; Roberts ; Lemieux and Depuis ; Ribeiro ; Vance ; Salvi , ; Ledgeway b, , , ; Wolfe a, b – but cf. Kaiser ; Rinke and Elsig  for criticism of this line of analysis). The old Romance V stage is considered a transitional phase in the move away from an archaic Latin SOV grammar in which the verb does not raise at all (or undergoes little movement inside the lexical vP-domain) (Ledgeway ) to the generalized V-to-I grammar of modern Romance. The origin of old Romance V has been traced to the doubly triggered (syntactic- and discourse-driven) V-fronting constructions of late Latin (Salvi ; Ledgeway ). The V analysis was first formulated on the basis of Germanic languages. Traditionally, with respect to Germanic11 (Dutch, German, continental Scandinavian), V was characterized as a ‘strict’ property (den Besten ; Vikner ; Zwart ; Cognola ) that displays the following features: (i) Declarative matrix clauses exhibit the XP+V word order; only one XP may precede the V (this is the ‘bottleneck effect’, Poletto ). (ii) In polar interrogatives, the verb occupies the clause-initial position. (iii) There is a strict matrix–embedded asymmetry: V is generally not available in embedded clauses (except for embedded V in so-called bridge contexts). (iv) V involves V-to-C movement; the C-domain is targeted by the finite verb (the inflected lexical verb or the auxiliary).

11 Germanic varieties such as Yiddish, in which the V rule applies in both main and subordinate clauses, have been characterized as ‘generalized’ V languages and analysed as involving V-to-I movement and a Spec, IP non-specialized for accommodating the subject (i.e. a Spec, IP with mixed A and A-bar properties; den Besten and Moed-van Walraven ; Diesing ; Zwart ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

By contrast, V in old Romance (with the exception of old French)12 is described as a ‘relaxed’ V grammar (Ledgeway a), characterized by the following features: (i) V is a constraint requiring the verb in finite matrix clauses to move to C. (ii) This movement operation is ‘generally, though not invariably, accompanied by a further movement rule which fronts one (or more) salient constituent(s) to a preverbal position’ (Ledgeway a:); hence there is no obligatory ‘bottleneck effect’.13 V is thus understood as a structural constraint (i.e. V represents V-to-C movement) rather than as a string–surface linearization condition (i.e. the verb occupies the second position). Several other properties follow from this characterization. (iii) Features of the clausal left periphery in V clauses: (a) The preverbal domain is not specialized for subjects: any type of constituent (objects, adjuncts, predicates) may be moved to the left periphery, provided that it has a particular discourse-related interpretation (Roberts ; Ribeiro ; Ledgeway a, ; Mensching ; Poletto ). (b) Multiple preverbal constituents may be fronted to the left periphery, this resulting in V, V word orders. (c) V structures are available in non-interrogative and non-jussive clauses and have different values: topic continuity; deictic topic; narrative V; rhematic V (Ledgeway a; Poletto ; Wolfe b). (iv) On the basis of Platzack and Holmberg (), Klein (, ), and Brandner (), Ledgeway (:) analyses old Romance V as a strategy for valuing assertive force. In conjunction with the observation that in old Romance the verb displaced to C occupies a lower position in a split-CP, namely Fin(P), we can understand why a matrix–embedded asymmetry also manifests itself in old Romance V; but this asymmetry is not strict, as it is in Germanic (except for V in ‘bridge’ contexts, Adam Legeway, p.c.), but statistical: V-to-C occurs chiefly in main clauses and more rarely in embedded clauses (Salvi , ; Ledgeway a; Poletto ; Wolfe b), as it does not compete structurally with complementizers that occupy the highest C-head, Force0. What is more, in Nicolae (c) it is shown that embedded V in OR occurs mostly in complement clauses (in typical ‘bridge’ contexts), which have a higher degree of assertiveness than relative clauses. We will retain the idea that old Romance V is characterized by a statistical matrix–embedded asymmetry. 12 Later old French (but not the earliest texts in this language, where V and V/ are not uncommon and possible; Adam Ledgeway, p.c.) exhibits a continental Germanic-type strict V grammar (Adams ; Roberts ); the Germanic influence has been invoked in this respect (Mathieu :). 13 Also, in old Romance V systems informational focus fronting is very frequent, in contrast to modern Germanic, where it is completely ungrammatical (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



(v) Finally, it has been argued that old Romance V is satisfied not only through the movement of a finite verbal element (i.e. a finite lexical verb or an auxiliary) to C, but also through the movement of a non-finite verb (Rivero , with reference to old Spanish and old Portuguese) or through the merger of sì in Fin0 (Ledgeway , with reference to old Neapolitan). Taking stock of this background, we can now turn to the analysis of OR inversion.

. OLD ROMANIAN INVERSION: FROM RESIDUAL V TO FOCUS The first part of this section reviews the distributional features that show that OR inversion represents the overt manifestation of a ‘relaxed’ V grammar characteristic of the older stages of most Romance languages. The second part of the section focuses on the quantitative side, showing that ‘relaxed’ V is residual in the earliest Romanian writings and gradually falls into disuse by the end of the th century.

..   ... Constant parametric settings: Negation and auxiliaries In spite of numerous diachronic changes that had an impact on the inventory of negators and (auxiliary-based) analytic constructions, clausal negation and auxiliaries did not undergo changes that affect the diagnosis of movement across domains (V-to-I vs V-to-C). .... Negation As in MR, in OR too the clausal negator nu occurs at the border between the C- and the I‑domains,14 preceding I-related elements (the synthetic verb (a), auxiliaries 14 Examples such as (i-a), unavailable in some of the other Romance languages (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.), where the sentential negator nu (‘not’) has narrow scope over the focalized fronted object, may be misleadingly taken to indicate that the clausal negator nu occurs in the C‑domain. They actually represent an instance of constituent negation – which has a contrastive focus interpretation (Zafiu ) – and not a situation in which nu undergoes movement to C. This is shown by the following facts: any (phasal) constituent may fall under the scope of constituent negation; the clause containing negated constituents is not necessarily negative; the negated constituent may freely occur postverbally (i-b). See Nicolae () for details.

(i)

a. Nu asta vreau not this want... ‘I don’t want to say ’

să  ˘ .

b. A venit nu Alex, .. come. not Alex ‘It is John who came, not Alex’

spun. say.. ci Ion. but John

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

(b), and pronominal clitics (c)) and being preceded by low complementizers (subjunctive să) (a), high complementizers (indicative că) (b), and wh-elements (a), in both non-translated and translated texts (Manea :–). () a. când nu înt¸eleage au el, au oamenii when not understand... or he or men. ‘when either he or the men don’t understand’ (CM.:v) b. şi nu ve pute folosi and not .. can. use. ‘and you will not be able to use’ (AA.:v) c. nimini de rudele meale nobody of relatives. my nu m-a grijit not ..=.. tend. ‘none of my relatives looked after me’ (DÎ.–:VIII) () a. ne rugămu [ . . . ] să nu pregetat¸i .. hope... ˘ . not hesistate.. ‘we hope that you won’t hesitate’ (DÎ.:XVIII) b. am auzit că nu vă îndurat¸i .. hear. that not .. take-pity... ‘I heard that you don’t take pity’ (A.:r) There are a few important differences between OR and MR concerning negation. Of those that do not have a direct bearing on V-movement, it is important to mention two: the usage of the adverbial nici as a clausal negator (); and the absence of negative concord (), a rare structure attested throughout the entire period (Dragomirescu ; Frâncu :, ). () nici poate dereage sufletul tău nimea not can. repair. soul.. your nobody. ‘and nobody can repair your soul’ (CC1.:v) () Patrusprădzeace dzile sântu astădzi de când fourteen days. be.. today since when aşteptat¸i ( . . . ), nemică preemitu wait.. nothing receive. ‘Today it’s been fourteen days since when you’ve been waiting and you have not received anything’ (CV.–:v) Relevant for the discussion on V-movement is the existence of pronominal enclisis to the right of the clausal negator nu; this structure has low frequency but is relevant, as it is one of the diagnostics that show that a low, vP-edge cliticization site is also active

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



in OR (see §...). By contrast, with the exception of four examples in Codicele popii Bratul15 (CB.–), V-Aux inversion to the right of negation (i.e. [Neg-VAux]) is virtually absent in OR (Zafiu , ; Nicolae and Niculescu , ). Movement of negation to C, advocated by previous scholarship (Hill and Alboiu ; Alboiu and Hill ), would predict the general availability of [Neg-V-Aux], contrary to fact (see also n.  in this chapter). () că nu înfricară-se because not get.afraid..=.. ‘because they did not get afraid’ (CP1.:v) .... Auxiliaries As in MR, OR auxiliaries merge in dedicated TAM heads in the IP-domain (for a discussion of the clitic nature of OR auxiliaries, see §...). There are OR–MR contrasts related to auxiliaries; however, none of these affects V-raising across domains (V-to-I vs V-to-C movement). The first important OR–MR difference is the existence of a richer inventory of analytic structures in OR (Densusianu , II:–; Zamfir , ; Zafiu  and references there), a subset of which was gradually eliminated by the th century (Dragomirescu :). The analytic structures preserved in the passage to MR are the following: the indicative compound past (a); the present (b), past (c), and gerundial (d) conditional; the indicative future (e), future perfect (f), and gerundial future (g); the perfect (h) and gerundial (i) subjunctive. The gerundial forms (see (d), (g), and (i)) are rare in OR, just like in MR. The periphrastic perfect gerund (j) and infinitive (k), formed with the auxiliary verb be in the gerund and in the infinitive respectively, plus the past participle, occur rarely and are late creations. The perfect gerund was first attested in the th century and the perfect infinitive in the th century (Niculescu :; Nedelcu :–). () a. au făcut .. make. ‘they made . ships’ b. să aş face if .. do. ‘if I did this’ (CP1.:r)

15

. .

de of

corabii (A.:r) ships

ceasta this

The exceptional word order patterns of CB.–, one of which is [Neg-V-Aux], follow from the fact that this text is a word‑by-word translation of its Old Church Slavonic source (Gafton :XL–XLI; Zafiu :, :).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar c. deaca ară fi venit den Mesopotamiia if .. be. come. from Mesopotamia ‘had he come from Mesopotamia’ (PO.:) d. de n-ară fi acesta fiind de la Dumnezeu if not=.. be. this be. from God ‘had this not been from God’ (CC1.:r) e. bună-vrearea lui va fi good-will. his .. be. bună-vrearea Domnului good-will. Lord. ‘his goodwill will be Lord’s goodwill’ (CM.:v) f. vet¸i fi făcut voi vreo tocmeală .. be. make. you() an arrangement ‘you will have done an arrangement’ (DÎ.:XXXI) g. cându vei fi lui arătându when .. be. he. show. ‘when you will be showing it to him’ (DVT.–:r) h. să fim noi iubit pre ˘ . be.. we love.  ‘should we have loved God’ (CC1.:r)

Dumnezeu God

i. să fi cineva cerând ceva ˘ . be. someone ask. something ‘should someone be asking for something’ (DVT.–:r) j. i-a vândut parte me dă moşie totă ..=.. sell. part. my of land all dă Boteni [ . . . ] păntru findu cuparatu dumnelui from Boteni for be. buy. he. mai nainte dă la at¸i moşteni dă Boteni more before from other. landowners from Boteni ‘I sold him all my land in Boteni, because he had bought [land] before from other landowners in Boteni’ (DRH.B.XXIV.:) k. a fi trăit înaintea lui Lameh , . be. live. before  Lameh  ‘to have lived before Lameh  years’ (ACT.:v)

de of

ani years

However, the transition from OR to MR witnesses a decline in the inventory of analytic structures. This is unexpected from a more general Romance perspective since, as is known, the transition from Latin to Romance in the verbal domain is characterized by a move away from synthetic to analytic structures, itself characterized by a profusion of auxiliary-verb structures (see Ledgeway : § and the extensive

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



references there), and this development generally characterizes the transition from Latin to Romanian as well. Yet, in the passage from OR to MR, numerous analytic structures disappeared to the advantage of their synthetic counterparts. The two types of analytic pluperfect (), the double compound perfect16 (), considered either a pluperfect (Densusianu , II:; Frâncu :), or a special perfect with a distinct value (Zamfir :–), and the want-conditionals () gradually disappear; only structures like () – have been residually preserved in dialects. () a. era adus Iisus la be.. bring. Jesus to ‘Jesus had brought them’ (CC1.:r)

ei them

b. salce-l fusese vădzut willow..=... be.. see. ‘the willow had seen him’ (CSVI.–:v; Zafiu ) () m-au fost robitu ..=.. be. enslave. ‘the Tartars had enslaved me’ (DÎ.–:XIV) () a. cine vrea face who want... make. ‘who would make this’ (ŞT.:)

acest this

tătarâi Tartars

lucru thing

b. n-au vrut folosi moartea not=.. want. use. death. ‘his death would not have been useful’ (CC1.:v)

lui his

c. de nu vrea fi întunecat if not want... be. upset. ‘if he wouldn’t have upset them’ (MC.:v) d. am vrut fi furat¸i .. want. be. stole... ‘we would have stolen’ (PO.:) In Nicolae (c:–) I have argued that, microparametrically, MR is a Moodoriented language: synthetic verbs target the highest I-field (the Mood field) (§..) and auxiliaries lexicalize (one of) the Mood0 head(s). What distinguishes all the extinct forms in () to () from those that were diachronically preserved () is the fact that the auxiliary is inflected for tense in the former, but not in the latter; therefore the auxiliary structure of the extinct structures lexicalizes both mood and tense, whether as a form inflected for tense in and of itself (as in (), (a), and 16 Double compound forms are sporadically attested also with the conditional and the future (Zafiu ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

(c)) or through co-occurrence with another auxiliary (as in (), (b), and (d)). The diachronic development of Romanian shows that an analytic formation whose internal structure does not conform to the microparametric setting is diachronically eliminated. OR auxiliaries are systematically preceded by pronominal clitics; thus, in contrast to other old (but also modern) Romance varieties (e.g. old Italian, old French, old Spanish; see Roberts , ; Rivero ; Mensching ; Poletto ), Aux-to-C movement is not an option of OR. Auxiliary doubling () and ellipsis () occur just occasionally. () şi i-ai mântuitu-i-ai and ...=.. save.=...=.. ‘and you saved them’ (PH.–:v) () m-u căutat ea şi √ purtat pre ..=.. look. she and take. through munt¸i mountains ‘she looked for me and took me through the mountains’ (DÎ.–:VIII) One can thus conclude that, with the exception of changes in the set of analytic constructions, OR auxiliaries receive the same analysis as those of MR: they lexicalize TAM heads in the inflectional domain and cannot undergo V-to-C movement.

... Pronominal clitics: Evidence for a vP-cliticization site In this subsection I seek to give answers to two independent yet related issues. (i) One is the presence or absence of second-position (i.e. Tobler-Mussafia/ Wackernagel) effects (cf. Tobler ; Mussafia ; Wackernagel ).17 The existence of such effects would imply that pronominal (and auxiliary) encliticization is phonologically determined and follows from a constraint against unstressed or unstressable words in clause-initial position. (ii) As will be shown, the earliest writings of the th century indicate that the constraint just described is not active (or perhaps no longer active); thus enclisis is syntactically determined. Recall that in MR pronominal enclisis is a reliable diagnostic for V-to-C movement (§..) and that we adopt a framework according to which pronouns may cliticize on the edge of all three clausal functional domain, the C-, I-, and v-domains (Benincà and Tortora , ; Tortora ). Numerous instances of variation in pronominal 17 See Nicolae and Niculescu (:–) for an extensive discussion on the relevance of the ToblerMussafia and Wackernagel laws to OR pronominal cliticization.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



clitic placement reveal that a low vP-edge cliticization site is available in OR (as well in other Romance varieties: see Ledgeway and Lombardi ; Tortora ). This cliticization site has been abandoned in the passage to MR. Turning to the first problem, the fact that enclisis is not phonologically determined (Alboiu and Hill ; Nicolae and Niculescu ) is shown by the existence of pronominal clitics in clause-initial position (), and by the fact that, although there is a preference for V-Cl and V-Cl-Aux (and V-Aux) to occur in clause-initial position (Zafiu , ), enclisis is not constrained to this position (): () a. Mă rog domniia-voastră să .. ask... lordship.=your ˘ . căutat¸ investigate.. ‘I ask your lordship to investigate’ (DÎ.–:XXV) b. S-a scris aceasta ..=.. written this ‘This was written when’ (ITM.:)

când when

c. O aleagem ... choose... ‘We are choosing it’ (GB.XVI–XVII:r) () a. Omulŭ amu grăiaşte-se şi man.. now speak...=.. and se cheamă de oameni iubitoriulŭ Dumnezeu .. call.. by people loving. God ‘Man is spoken to and is called by God who loves the people’ (CC2.:) b. Pentru aceaea datu-i-am for that give.=..=.. acea giumătate de sat that half of village ‘For that we gave him that half of the village’ (DÎ.:CXVII) Alongside the distribution witnessed in (), which indicates that pronominal clitics do not show a propensity towards the clausal left edge, we should add two diagnostics from Rivero (),18 which show that clitics are not C-oriented. First, the position of clitics with respect to the clausal negator is an important diagnostic for C-orientation of clitics, as C-oriented clitics precede the clausal negator (as they do in 18

Rivero () distinguishes between C-oriented and I-oriented clitics; in agreement with the bibliography invoked above, I further distinguish Rivero’s I-oriented clitics into two subclasses: I-oriented clitics and v-oriented clitics.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

Serbo-Croatian and in old Spanish).19 The extensive analysis of all the non-translated th-century texts and of a large number of texts translated into Romanian has revealed that, regardless of the clausal negator (see §....), the word order [pronominal clitic – negator] is not attested. Second, adjacency to complementizers is another important diagnostic for C-orientation of clitics: it is true that pronominal clitics may occur in strict adjacency to high (Force0) complementizers (a); however, this is the effect of an empty left periphery, as shown by the fact that, as soon as constituents access the left periphery, the complementizer–clitic adjacency is broken (b). () a. Ci vedemu că se teame de but see... that .. fear... of că-l vomu prinde that=... .. catch. ‘but we see that he fears us, that we will catch him’ (DÎ.:XVIII)

noi us

b. că cu direptate şi giudet¸ adevărat toate that with righteousness and judgment true all le aduseş ... bring... ‘that, with righteousness and true judgment, you brought all of them (upon us)’ (DDL.:) Thus OR does not provide distributional evidence for a C-oriented cliticization site. Applying Occam’s razor, the remaining options are the I-oriented and the v-oriented cliticization sites. The distributional evidence presented next shows that both sites are available. The lowest, v-oriented site is accessed more rarely and becomes unavailable by the end of OR, being accessed only as a last-resort strategy in modern and present-day Romanian; it is accessed, namely, by the feminine singular accusative o as a combined effect of structural factors (the CP–DP parallelism, Ledgeway b) and of a still emerging phonological constraint (i.e. a hiatus-avoiding strategy, Nicolae c). To begin with, both proclisis and enclisis are attested to the right of the clausal negator ()–(); proclisis indicates an I-oriented cliticization site, while enclisis testifies to a v-oriented site. Examples such as (b) and (c) actually confirm the hypothesis that the pronominal clitic is located on the vP-edge and that enclisis is not the effect of V-to-C movement in conjunction with movement of the negator higher in the left periphery (cf. Isac and Jakab ): the only possible derivation of these examples involves V-to-I movement of the lexical verb, the rest of the material being situated low in the C-domain (i.e. subjunctive să in Fin0, (b)), on the C/I border (the negator, in both examples) or high in the I-domain (the auxiliary, (c)). 19 Old Spanish has a mixed, C-oriented and I-oriented, cliticization system (Rivero ), which has also been taken to account for the existence of interpolation in old Spanish (Poole ; see also §...).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus () a. dici Arbănaşul nu s-au so Arbănaşul not ..=.. ‘so Arbănaşul did not quit’ (DÎ.‒:XII)



lăsat quit.

b. muma noastră nu o vom mother. our not ... .. ‘we will no longer see our mother’ (A.:r) () a. ceia ce nu înşalî-se those who not deceive...=.. ‘those who are not deceived by me’ (CT.–:v)

mai  de by

vede see. mine me

b. să nu ruşinedzi-mă în veac  ˘ . not shame..=.. in age ‘you should not shame me forever’ (CM.:v) ridicatu-să nimeni c. n-au not=.. raise.=.. nobody ‘nobody brought a delation’ (AB:; Todi :)

cu nici o pâră with no delation

The proclisis–enclisis alternation ()/() of pronominal clitics in the presence of proclitic auxiliaries is also compatible with the claim that both an I-oriented cliticization site (for the former) and a v-oriented site (for the latter) are available in OR: () şi nu mă voiu and not .. .. ‘I will not show myself ’ (CC2.:)

arăta show.

() a. de vor mesteca-se if .. mix.=.. ‘if they mix (=fornicate)’ (Prav.:r) b. vei curăt¸i-ne sufletele şi trupurile ( . . . ) .. purify.=.. souls. and bodies. şi vei da-ne and .. give.=.. ‘you will purify our souls and bodies ( . . . ) and will give us’ (DDL.:) Multiple clitic realization20 ()–() (see Densusianu , II:; Uşurelu ) – the redundant, proclitic and enclitic realization of the same pronoun – is one of the

20 Multiple realization on distinct heads (i) (especially in the case of complex predicates) is a related but distinct phenomenon (see Nicolae and Niculescu :– for a discussion).

(i)

va putea a le Le .. .. can. . .. ‘he will be able to say them’ (CPV.~:r)

spune say.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

strongest indications for the existence of a low, v-oriented cliticization site alongside a high, I-oriented one. Frâncu (:, ) shows that this phenomenon is diatopically constrained: repeated clitics occur especially, but not exclusively, in the north (Transylvanian and Moldovan texts), and certain authors show a preference for these constructions (e.g. the Moldovan chroniclers or Metropolitan Dosoftei). Doubly realized clitics occur with both synthetic and analytic forms, in documents written directly in Romanian as well as in translated texts. () a. tote ne judecate-ne all .. judge.=.. cu derăptu cant¸ilariia domnetale with right chancellery. your ‘your chancellery rightly judged all’ (DÎ.:C) b. cungiurară me şi surround... .. and se adunra-se cu menre .. fight...=.. with me ‘they surrounded me and fought me’ (PH.–:v) () a. te vei întoarce-te .. .. return.= .. ‘you will return’ (DPar.:II.r) b. mi-au pusu-mi mitră ..=.. put.=.. crown ‘they put a crown on me’ (DDL.:) c. multă goană ce o au a-lot race which ... .. gonit-o prin munt¸i race.=... through mountains ‘a big race that they took through the mountains’ (ULM.~:v) Multiple clitics occur up until the th century, especially with accusative feminine singular o, which has special linearization properties. () aceasta o va insulta-o this. ... will insult=... ‘this will insult her’ (th century, Ghica; Zafiu :) The enclisis of the reflexive clitic se has been considered a ‘foreign syntactic feature’ (Avram  []:) with an Old Church Slavonic source, and this has somewhat led traditional scholars to extend the contact hypothesis and assume that the bigger share of pronominal enclisis in OR is due to intense contact with Slavonic (see Stan b:–, with references). According to Olteanu (:), the Slavonic reflexive

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



sę is always enclitic; furthermore, in the analysis of Old Church Slavonic writings, Willis (:) shows that ‘when negation and pronominal clitics co-occur . . . the norm seems to be for the pronominal clitic (always reflexive) to follow the lexical verb’. However, while it is true that reflexive se shows a preference for enclisis, the foreign Slavonic model cannot account for the entire body of evidence for a v-oriented cliticization site reviewed above: instances of enclisis explicitly diagnosing a v-oriented site also occur in non-translated documents (e.g. (c), (a), ()) and, more importantly, they are not limited to reflexive pronouns (or reflexive se in particular). While important, the impact of Old Church Slavonic on the syntax of OR should not be overstated. Another important indirect piece of evidence for the existence of two cliticization sites comes from Corbeanu’s () extensive work on the subject positions in OR. Corbeanu (: §§...; ...; ...) shows that, while there is a strong preference for postverbal subjects in structures with enclitic auxiliaries (structures derived via V-to-C movement) (e.g.  postverbal subjects to  preverbal subjects in DÎ), no such preference is shown by structures with pronominal enclitics, especially up until . In conclusion, (i) pronominal enclisis is not subject to Tobler-Mussafia/ Wackernagel effects, and (ii) a low v-oriented cliticization site is active in OR.

... Summary: Implications for diagnosing V-to-C movement (i) Auxiliary verbs are a reliable diagnostic for distinguishing structures in which V-to-C movement applies (inversion: V-(Cl-)Aux) from structures in which the lexical verb undergoes raising to I.21 (ii) By contrast, structures with pronominal enclitics (V-Cl) receive a double reading, in the absence of other functional cues: they are compatible with a V-to-C analysis (I-oriented cliticization site) and a V-to-I analysis (v-oriented cliticization site). They are therefore a perfect illustration of the P-ambiguity of linguistic strings. The clausal structure assumed for MR (see ()) should be enriched for OR with the low, v-edge cliticization site: ()

ForceP > TopP* > FocP > FinP > NegP > PersP* > IP > PersP* > vP

In light of these results, in the statistical analyses that follow I will count separately V‑(Cl-)Aux inversion and V-Cl inversion, keeping in mind that enclisis provides cues for both V-to-C and V-to-I movement. Most probably, the P-ambiguity of the structures with pronominal enclitics is one of the factors that played an important role in the diachronic resetting of the V-raising parameter, ultimately triggering the elimination of V-to-C movement in non‑directive contexts (analysed here as a relaxed old Romance V grammar) in the passage to MR. 21 A residual option is represented by low verb movement, manifested as interpolation and scrambling; this is the object of the next chapter.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

... V-movement targets specifiers The same set of tests used for discriminating against a head movement and a phrasal movement analysis of V-raising with reference to MR (§..) can be extended to OR. As shown in §...., auxiliary inversion in the presence of negation is absent, with the exception of four attestations in a word-by-word translation from Old Church Slavonic. Conversely, pronominal enclitics are attested to the right of the clausal negator, but this distribution, along with other phenomena, has been taken as an indication of a low, v-edge cliticization site (§....). V-to-C movement is thus blocked in the presence of phrasal clausal negators, testifying to the fact that V-movement targets specifiers. By contrast, heads are either bypassed (auxiliaries) or incorporated through left adjunction, pied-piping along with the moving verb (clitic adverbials). In OR the additive clitic adverbial mai exhibits the same behaviour as in MR, undergoing V-to-C movement along with verb: () a. mai scăzut-au au mai  decrease.=.. or  ‘he still removed and added’ (DÎ.:XIX)

adaos-au add.=..

b. au mai fi-va vreo viiat¸ă şî altă really  be.=.. any life and another ‘Will there be one more life and another world?’ (SVI.~:r) c. Audzi-va Dumnedzeu şi hear.=.. God and mai micşura-i-va  shrink.=..=.. ‘God will hear and will still shrink them’ (PH.–:r) cu put¸in d. Mai micşuraşi-l  shrink...=... with little ‘you still shrank him a little bit more’ (PH.–:r)

lume? world

Thus inversion in OR, although not triggered by a [+directive] feature in all instances as in MR, adopts the same V-raising strategy: movement through specifiers.

... V-to-C is V-to-Fin OR provides direct and indirect distributional evidence for the fact that, just as in MR, the C‑related position targeted by V-raising is FinP. .... Direct distributional evidence: main-clause inverted subjunctives Direct distributional evidence is given by the behaviour of the subjunctive particle să. Before reviewing its distributional properties, it is important to mention that the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



homonymous conditional conjunction să (cf. Fr., Sp. si, It. se) is also available in –th-century Romanian.22 Conditional să is easy to distinguish from subjunctive să: on the one hand, it selects verbs in the indicative (a)–(b) and in the conditional (c) (while subjunctive să exclusively selects a verb in the subjunctive) and, on the other hand, the conditional să – verb cluster may be broken by left peripheral constituents (), this testifying to the fact that conditional să is a high, Force0 complementizer (or at least occupies a higher position than Fin0, e.g. Rizzi’s  Int0). Conditional să was gradually eliminated by its equivalents de and dacă, most probably due to its homonymic overlap with subjunctive să (Zafiu :–). () a. Se nu a vrut Dumnedzeu clădi casa, if not .. want. God build. house. în deşert trudiră-se dziditorii in vain labour...=.. builders. ‘If God didn’t want to build the house, the builders laboured in vain’ (PH.‑:r) b. iară, să ne vom bate cu Moldova, and if .. .. fight. with Moldova noi să lăsăm turcii we ˘ . abandon.. Turks. ‘and if we fight against Moldova, we should abandon the Turks’ (DÎ.: XXXII) c. numai să ne ară arăta un only if .. .. show. an ‘if they would only give us an occasion’ (DÎ.:XXXVI)

prilej occasion

() Să cu limbi omeneşti şi îngereşti aşŭ grăi if with languages human and angelical .. speak. ‘if I’d spoke in human and angel voices’ (CC2.:) By contrast, OR subjunctive să has the same distributional features as its MR counterpart: it precedes clitics and clausal negation (), co-occurs with 22 The etymological relation between subjunctive să and conditional să has been the subject of a long debate; one group of scholars claims that conditional să is the source of subjunctive să (Frâncu , ; Hill ), while another argues for an independent grammaticalization of the two, on the basis of their different usages (conditional, on the one hand, and purposive and additive, on the other hand) of Lat. / () (Iliescu and Manoliu ; Zafiu :). There are several arguments in favour of the latter hypothesis: first, purposive > complementizer is a familiar path of grammaticalization (Haspelmath ; Heine and Kuteva ); second, grammaticalization of a Force0 complementizer (conditional să) into a Fin0 complementizer (subjunctive să) would allude to downwards reanalysis (cf. Roberts and Roussou ; and see Nicolae d for OR să); third, the grammaticalization of contemporary Rom. şi (‘and’) as a subjunctive marker in the dialects of Romanian (Zafiu ) also supports the second etymological hypothesis from the perspective of cyclical change; and, fourth, conditional să and subjunctive să have very different distributions in th-century Romanian, as shown in the main text.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

wh-elements (), appears in split C-constructions (), and may undergo recomplementation (). () a. să nu ştie ˘ . not know.. ‘they should not know’ (DÎ.:I) b. să vă păzit¸i ˘ . ... take-care.. ‘you should take care’ (DÎ.:I) () a. n-amŭ unde să-mi adunŭ not=.. where ˘ .=.. collect grâulŭ mieu? wheat. my ‘I don’t have where to collect my wheat’ (CC2.:) viiaze b. Că nu iaste om care să because not is human who  ˘ . live.. şi să nu greşască and ˘ . not trespass.. ‘Because there is no human who is alive and never goes wrong’ (Mol.:) () giuru-mă pre marele mieu dumnedzău, swear...=.. on great my god ca nu cumva să să mânie spre mine that not by.chance ˘ . .. get.angry.. at me v ‘I swear to God, in order for him not to get angry at me’ (PI.~: ) () să nu cumva truda noastră şi usteneala ˘ . not by.chance hard.work. our and effort. să piiardemŭ ˘ . lose.. ‘we should not lose our hard work and effort’ (CC2.:) Hence we can assume the same syntax for subjunctive să in OR, namely merger in Fin0. Just like in MR, main clause, directive subjunctives which undergo V-to-C movement (diagnosed by pronominal enclisis) disallow the overt lexicalization of să (). Main-clause injunctive să-less subjunctives are also attested (); although pronominal clitics are not present, the absence of să and the [+directive] reading indicate that V-to-C movement has indeed taken place in (). () a. De-ne noauă duhul give..=.. us spirit. ‘let the holy spirit give us . . . ’ (FT.–:r)

svântu holy

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



b. Tatăl nostru ce eşti în ceri, Father. our who be.. in heaven sfint¸ească-se numele tău hallow..=.. name. your ‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name’ (CCat.:v) () a. Acicea popa grăiască here priest. say.. ‘the priest should say here’ (CM.:r) b. E se neştinre chinuiaşte rreu and if someone torment... badly întru voi rrugă facă among you prayer make.. ‘and if any of you is badly tormented, (s)he should utter a prayer’ (CV.–:v) c. Şi afle aiasta scrisoare a mea sănătoş and find.. this letter . my healty. pre domeavoastră  you. ‘Let this letter of mine find you healthy’ (DÎ.:CXIV) Since V-movement targets specifiers, the constraint on the insertion of să follows, as explained in §.., from a (Generalized) Doubly Filled COMP Filter violation that prevents overt material to occur simultaneously in Fin0 and Spec,FinP. By contrast, in embedded clauses where V-to-C movement is restricted (see §§....; ...), să is inserted and pronominal enclisis diagnoses the low, v-oriented cliticization site (). () ca să dereptezi-te so.that ˘ . mend..=.. ‘so that you mend your ways’ (CL.:v) To conclude, main-clause subjunctives provide evidence in favour of the hypothesis that V‑to-C movement targets FinP. By applying Occam’s razor, we can bring more pieces of indirect evidence to support the hypothesis that, under inversion, the verb displaced to the C-domain targets FinP. .... Inversion and ForceP The fact that V-to-C does not target ForceP or a high left periphery position hosting wh‑elements is shown through the occurrence of inversion in embedded

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

clauses headed by complementizers, as in (), and by wh-elements, as in () (see also §...): () Acmu acest om aşă gândeaşte, now this man so think... că fi-va foarte bine that be.=.. very good ‘Now this man thinks like this, that it will turn out well’ (DÎ.:XCV) () zmeul aceala ce fapt-ai dragon. that which make.=.. ‘that dragon you made’ (CM.:v) .... Inversion and the left periphery A rich left periphery is available with main-clause inversion as well as with embedded inversion (see also §...). Multiple constituents may access the left periphery (): this shows that V-to-C movement targets a position lower than Rizzi’s () left peripheral information structure-related projections. Consider (c) in more detail: all the underlined constituents are displaced to the left periphery; V-to-C movement is diagnosed by postverbal auxiliaries, not by pronominal enclitics, which are also compatible with a v-oriented cliticization site (§...). () a. Atunce derept¸ii lumina-se-vorŭ ca soarele then just.. light.=..=.. like sun. ‘Then the just men will light like the sun’ (CC2.:; Zafiu ) b. Şî pintru mare credint¸ă în loc de pecet¸ and for more confidence instead of seals pusu-n-am degetele (DÎ.–:VI) put.=..=.. fingers.. ‘And for more confidence, instead of seals, we put our fingerprint’ c. Domnulŭ Dumnezeu, totŭ-t¸iitoriulŭ, în multe chipuri de scripturi şi de învăt¸ături dat‑au (give.=..) oamenilorŭ săi: întâi lu Moisi prorocŭ leagea veache Iudeilorŭ dat-au (give.=..); iară noao, creştinilorŭ, Hristosŭ, mântuitoriulu nostru, a sa bunăvestire, sfânta evanghelie, datu-o-au (give.=... =..) a patru evanghelisti ‘In many types of scriptures and teachings, Lord Almighty gave to his people: first, he gave Moses the prophet the old law of the Jews; and Christ our saviour gave us the Christians his annunciation, the holy gospel of the four evangelists’ (CC2.:) The preverbal field of main clauses featuring inversion is not a specialized subject position, an important piece of evidence in favour of the V analysis (see Wolfe

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



b:, with references): not only subjects () but also objects (), adjuncts (), and predicates () may be displaced to the left periphery. () Adecă eu, Marin o(t) Boldeşti, scris-am that.is I Marin from Boldeşti write.=.. acest zapis [a]l meu this document .. my ‘That is I, Marin from Boldeşti, have written this document of mine’ (DÎ.:VII) () Aceasta moşia vândut-am noi de bunăvoia this land sell.=.. us of will ‘We sold this land by our own will’ (DÎ.–:XIII)

noastră our

purta-te-vor () şi în mânile lor and in arms. their carry.=..=.. ‘and they will carry you in their arms’ (CC1.:r) fi‑vorŭ () iară atunce foarte bine despărt¸it¸i and then very well separate... be.=.. ‘and then they will be very well separated’ (CC2.:) .... Inversion is not movement to focus Despite the fact that the Moldovan Chronicles analysed by Alboiu, Hill, and Sitaridou () and by Hill and Alboiu () show an almost perfect complementary distribution between inversion and other types of movement to focus, in older texts this complementary distribution is not observed. The distribution observed in the Chronicles (texts dating from the last part of the period conventionally dubbed OR) follows from the gradual elimination of the already residual (see §...) V grammar, which, prior to its complete jettison, is reanalysed as a focus-marking strategy (§...). Inversion in polar interrogatives is favoured (), but not obligatory (): () O, blajine Evante, dară pute-voiu merge până la raiu? oh meek Evant but can.=.. go. until to heaven ‘Meek Evant, will I be able to go to heaven?’ (A.:v) () Sfint¸ii lu Dumnezeu păcătoşi au saints.  God sinners.. .. ‘God’s saints were they sinners?’ (CC1.:r)

fost? be.

Inversion is available even in the presence of interrogative particle (e.g. oare): () Şi and

cuget, think...

maica mother.

[t]a your

oare 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar vede-te-va, au nu te va see.=..=.. or not .. .. mai [vede]?  see. ‘And I wonder, will your mother still see you or not?’ (A.:v)

Although not very frequently, inversion is available in wh-interrogatives: () a. Dzeu, cinre asămănra-se-va God. who resemble.=..=.. ‘God, who can be like you?’ (PH.–:v)

¸t ie? you..

b. Dară cine amu den bogat¸i putea-se-va spăsi? but who now from rich. can.=..=.. save. ‘Which rich people will be able to save themselves?’ (CC2.:) Finally, inversion is available in the presence of verum focus (): () a. [Şi vădzindŭ şi pre Ştefan vodă în turburări totdeauna şi despre ai săi şi despre streini, l‑au mazilit, luându-lŭ în obédzi din T ¸ara Muntenească, iară domniia, în locul lui, au datŭ Radului vodă, carile are nume în ¸t ară, de-i dzicŭ Radul vodă cel Mare.] Şi cu adevăratŭ cade-i-să acestŭ nume and with truth deserves=..=.. this name în veaci să aibă in eternity ˘ . have.. ‘[And also seeing Voivode Stephen always anxious about his folks and about the aliens, they deposed him, taking him in handcuffs form Wallachia, and the reign, instead of him, was given to Voivode Radu, whose name in the country is Voivode Radu the Great.] And he certainly deserves to have this name forever’ (CLM.‑:r) şi b. atâta amu mai vârtosŭ împlea-se-va this.much now much more fill.up.=..=.. and limpezi-se-va clarify.=..=.. ‘it will fill up and clarify even more’ (CC2.:) To conclude, V-movement does not target the focus projection. However, the relation between inversion and focalization (most prominent in later texts) cannot be denied and will be accounted for in section §..., after I touch upon other issues concerning V constructions and the frequency and distribution of inversion.

... V clauses A well-known characteristic of V systems is the existence, as a word order alternative, of verb-initial (V) orders in non‑interrogative and non-jussive clauses

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



(see Wolfe b:–, with references). This characteristic has been also observed in the older, V stages, of Romance languages (Roberts ; Fontana ; Ribeiro ; Benincà , ; Ledgeway a; Salvi , ; Poletto ; Wolfe b). This section focuses on non‑interrogative and non-jussive V clauses featuring auxiliary inversion (a clear structural diagnostic for V-to-C movement),23 showing that the entire panoply of values discussed by Wolfe (b) for the older stages of Sicilian, Occitan, Venetian, and Spanish is attested in OR as well. In the second OR stage (mostly in the th century), especially in the Moldovan chronicles studied by Hill and Alboiu (), we observe a gradual orientation of V orders towards focus marking. Rhematic V, characterized by the fact that the entire clause consists of new information and introduces not yet activated referents in the discourse (Lambrecht ; Wolfe b), is richly attested in our corpus: () Preadoslovie adecă voroava cătră cititoriul Fost-au gândul mieu (be.=.. thought. my), iubite cititoriule, să fac leatopiset¸ul ¸t ărâi noastre Moldovei din descălecatul ei cel dintăi, carele au fostŭ de Traian împăratul [ . . . ] ‘Preface, that is, foreword to the reader My thought was, dear reader, to make the chronicle of our country Moldova from its first foundation, which started with Emperor Trajan [ . . . ]’ (CLM.–:r) Narrative V, characteristic of verba dicendi, is also a value of verb-initial clauses: ()

Dzis-au paşa (say.=.. pasha.) acestor domni, după ce au vinit la dânsul ‘The pasha said to these prices after they came to him’ (NL.~–:)

The inverted lexical verb in () is associated with an aboutness topic interpretation, as it represents old, discourse-given information, while the remainder of the clause is rhematic: () (Dumnezăiasca Liturghie, acmu întăi tipărită rumâneşte, cu multă osârdie, să-nt¸ăleagă tot¸ spăsenia lui Dumnezău cu întreg înt¸ăles.) Tipăritu-s-au (print.=..=..) la svânta Mitropolie în Iaş, mesit¸ă mai, în anul . ‘(The Holy Gospel, for the first time now printed in Romanian, with much endeavour, so that all will understand God’s meekness at its full.) It was printed at the Holy Metropolitan Seat in Iaşi, in the month of May, in the year ’ (DDL.: )

23 For ease of exposition, the lengthier examples were just translated without interlinear glosses and the V sequence was highlighted in bold and glossed in round brackets.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

V serves for referential continuity (cf. Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl ), i.e. for topic continuity: ()

Mihail voevo(da) [ . . . ] Îngăduit-au (allow.=..) pre voia împăratului ‘Voivode Michael [ . . . ] He allowed through the emperor’s will’ (DÎ.:XLVIII)

Especially in the Chronicles, V constructions associate with a change of narrative perspective (). Alboiu, Hill, and Sitaridou () and Hill and Alboiu () have analysed this usage of V orders as thetic assertion-yielding presentational or information focus V. () Înt¸elegând Ştefan vodă cum că adevărat Radul vodă domnul muntenesc şi cu oastea sa îi vine asupră, ghenarie  zile au trecut Seretiul şi mai sus de Râmnic le-au fost războiul. Şi dând războiu vitejéşte despre amândouă părt¸ile, multă pagubă s-au făcut şi cu vrérea lui Dumnedzău fu izbânda lui Ştefan vodă, că pierdură munténii războiul. Dat-au Ştefan vodă (give.=.. Stephen voivode) oştii sale voie să prade în trei dzile, cât vor putea, în T ¸ara Românească şi prădând, adus-au multă dobândă ostaşii. ‘As Stephen Voivode truly understood that Radu Voivode the Wallachian prince with his army is going to attack, on the th of January they crossed the Seretius and above Râmnic they had the war. And being a strong war on both sides, a lot of damage was done, and with God’s will, the victory was Stephen’s, and the Wallachians lost the war. Stephen Voivode allowed his troops to loot for three days, how much they can, in Wallachia and by looting, the soldiers brought much gain’ (ULM.~:M.f.v-r)

... Summary Under the assumption that V should not be reduced to a string-surface, superficial word order constraint (e.g. Fontana ; Ledgeway a, ; Wolfe a, b) but should rather be conceived of as a structural constraint requiring V-raising to C, OR inversion has been shown to observe all the features specific of the V stage in the old Romance varieties studied so far. (i) Evidence for V-to-C movement is provided by two distinct phenomena that result in inversion, namely postverbal auxiliaries and pronominal enclisis. While postverbal auxiliaries unambiguously diagnose V-to-C movement, pronominal enclisis is P-ambiguous, being compatible both with a V-to-C analysis and with a V-to-I analysis. The fact that the lexical verb is systematically targeted by V-to-C movement derives from the V-raising strategy characteristic of (old and modern) Romanian: whatever theoretical solution is adopted (classical phrasal movement, along Koopman and Szabolcsi’s  line of analysis, or V0-to-Spec movement, à la Vicente  or

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



Harizanov ), V-raising proceeds through specifiers, as shown by the empirical observation that phrasal elements block V-raising, while heads do not. The observation that V-Aux structures also represent a strategy for satisfying V has been made by Rivero (:) too, for old Spanish and old Portuguese: ‘the environments for OSp Enclisis and OSp Analytic Futures/Conditionals are the same, that is, a subset of the root contexts where Germanic V is found, which seems to be the case in old Portuguese too’. (ii) The preverbal domain is neither specialized for subjects nor restricted to one single constituent. V constructions are also attested, and have different values. (iii) As shown at various points above, inversion occurs chiefly in matrix clauses, but is also attested in embedded clauses. Thus OR V shows a ‘relaxed’ matrix– embedded asymmetry. In what follows this issue will be investigated from a quantitative point of view.

..      The remainder of the chapter discusses the share of V in the grammar of OR and shows that V was already residual in the earliest Romanian writings, gradually fading in favour of a generalized V-to-I grammar by the end of the th century.

... Some methodological remarks Before proceeding to the statistical analysis, it is necessary to explain the methodological guidelines that it has observed. (i) The material analysed from a quantitative perspective consists of a selection of texts from my Appendix (Corpus of old Romanian texts); both documents written directly in Romanian and translations culled from different sources (Slavonic, Latin) have been analysed. Stylistic and register diversity is another criterion that determined the choice of texts submitted to analysis. (ii) The two different diagnostics, enclitic auxiliaries and enclitic pronominals, have been kept distinct: while V-(Cl-)Aux strings unambiguously diagnose Vto-C movement, V-Cl strings are compatible with both a V-to-C and a V-to-I grammar. The pronominal enclisis diagnostic should not be dismissed on account of its P-ambiguity but rather understood as one of the triggers for the diachronic change that ultimately determined the resetting of the Vmovement parameter. Needless to say, the strings without auxiliaries or pronominal clitics (or both) have been left out, since the functional material diagnosing V-to-C vs V-to-I is absent. Negative clauses have not been considered, as the clausal negator nu blocks V-to-C movement for minimality reasons, as explained above (§....).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

(iii) With respect to V-Aux structures, the statistics focused on the indicative compound past and analytic future, leaving out structures with double auxiliaries and the analytic conditional. The compound past and the simple future are the most frequent forms encountered in OR texts. Table . summarizes the discussion in Nicolae (c:–) and shows that, although these two forms are present in different proportions in the OR texts surveyed, the rate at which they undergo inversion is close (across all three centuries, . per cent for the compound past and . per cent for the future). Thus about one in ten analytic forms undergoes inversion. Only V-Aux and Aux-V structures have been considered here; ‘o’ stands for occurrence. Some differences in the figures follow from the fact that the texts selected for the th century (CCat.; CPrav.–; FT.–; DÎ; CM.) were exhaustively investigated, while for the th and the th centuries we have looked only into a subpart of the texts; the percentages (boldfaced) thus faithfully reflect the distribution of each form, taken singly. T . Compound past and analytic future in OR: share of inversion Compound past Century

Compound past and analytic future

Simple future

17th c.

V-Aux o: 70 10.54% o: 18 15%

Aux-V o: 594 89.46% o: 102 85%

Total o: 664 100% o: 120 100%

V-Aux o: 41 13.27% o: 39 20.63%

Aux-V o: 268 86.73% o: 150 79.37%

Total o: 309 100% o: 189 100%

V-Aux o: 111 11.41% o: 57 18.45%

Aux-V o: 862 88.59% o: 252 81.55%

Total o: 973 100% o: 309 100%

18th c.

o: 28 3.82%

o: 705 96.18%

o: 733 100%

o: 3 2.26%

o: 130 97.74%

o: 133 100%

o: 31 3.58%

o: 835 96.42%

o: 866 100%

Total

o: 116 7.65%

o: 1401 92.35%

o: 1517 100%

o: 83 13.15%

o: 548 86.85%

o: 631 100%

o: 199 9.26%

1949 90.74%

2148 100%

16th c.

Structures with double auxiliaries have not been considered; this is because their very rare occurrence makes them statistically inconsequential. Attested inversion with these forms is of two types: either the lexical V undergoes V-to-C movement across the double auxiliary (plus pronominal clitics) sequence (), or there is auxiliary inversion within the IP (i.e. the lower auxiliary headmoves and adjoins the higher auxiliary), without movement to C of the lexical verb (): () Cădea-t¸i-s-au vrut ¸t ie ought.=..=..=.. want. you.. să dai argintul mieu negut¸ătorilor ˘ . give.. silver. my merchants. ‘you should have given my silver to the merchants’ (NT.:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



() mare lucru fi-vrea ştiutŭ big thing be.=want.. know. ‘they would have liked to know an important thing’ (CC2.:; Stan b:) Finally, the inversion of the analytic conditional is problematic. Owing to the fact that the analytic conditional is based on the bare short infinitive, which always ends in a full vowel, and the conditional auxiliary starts with the vowel a, V-Aux strings systematically give rise to a vowel–vowel sequence that is avoided as a result of a general phonotactic constraint on hiatus active in Romanian (Vasiliu and Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu :–). In order to avoid the hiatic context, the long -re infinitive is sometimes employed (), but this strategy gradually becomes unavailable because of the full nominalization of the -re infinitive (Nedelcu :–). The gradual strengthening of the constraint on hiatus can also be seen in the change of the linearization options of the feminine singular accusative clitic o in contexts in which the auxiliary starts with a vowel (Nicolae and Niculescu :–): the proclisis of o (), frequent in the early texts, is gradually replaced, especially after , by enclisis and becomes general by the end of the old period. Enclisis activates the low, v-oriented cliticization site (Ledgeway b). () Vrear-ară want.-RE=.. ‘he would want’ (PH.–:v) () a. derept aceaea o au for that ... .. ‘for that God sent her’ (FD.–:r)

trimes send.

Dumnădzău God

b. că au pierdut-o that .. lose.=... ‘that he lost it’ (ACP.:v) V-Cl-Aux strings in the conditional are attested and productive. Yet the absence of V-Aux strings (for the reasons explained above) renders the statistical analysis uneven; hence it is appropriate to exclude the analytic conditional altogether from statistical analysis.

... V-to-C vs V-to-I in figures This section discusses the ratio of V-to-C movement to V-to-I movement on the basis of a sample of representative texts from the th century to the th century. As anticipated, the two diagnostics (auxiliary inversion and pronominal enclisis) have been analysed separately from a statistical perspective. Table . depicts the ratio of auxiliary inversion, which unambiguously diagnoses V-to-C movement, to non-inverted structures, which reflect a V-to-I grammar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

18th century

17th century

16th century

Century

T . V-to-I  V-to-C (V); diagnostic: auxiliaries V-to-I grammar V-to-C grammar TOTAL (Aux-V) (V-Aux) V-to-I and Text V-to-C Aux-V Cl-Aux-V TOTAL V-Aux V-Cl-Aux TOTAL CCat.1560 23 7 30 2 2 4 34 109 CPrav.1560–2 30 139 4 2 6 145 26 23 FT.1571–5 49 7 3 10 59 594 172 DÎ 766 59 6 65 831 110 22 CM.1567 132 39 17 56 188 100% % 16th century 88.78% (o. 1116) 12.22% (o. 141) (o. 1257) NT.1648 (20 p.) 145 50 195 13 3 16 211 LC.~1650 1 8 9 10 1 11 20 PI.~1650 (30 p.) 66 29 95 7 4 11 106 CZB.1675–6 23 8 31 4 0 4 35 DDL.1679 (100 p.) 26 35 61 5 18 23 84 Fiz.1693 1 13 14 18 0 18 32 100% % 17th century 82.99% (o. 405) 17.01% (o. 83) (o. 488) AA.1708 58 33 91 2 3 5 96 ACP.1714 55 45 100 0 1 1 101 ULM.~1725 (20 p.) 146 113 259 9 6 15 274 CLM.1700–50 (20 p.) 295 122 417 13 2 15 432 NL.~1750–66 (20 p.) 281 187 468 7 1 8 476 100% % 18th century 96.81% (o. 1335) 3.19% (o. 44) (o. 1379) TOTAL 1959 897 2856 199 69 268 3124 100% % 91.42% (o. 2856) 8.58 % (o. 268) (o. 3124)

If we turn now to the pronominal enclisis–proclisis alternation, the data have been broken into two distinct tables. The first, Table ., depicts the alternation with indicatives. The second, Table ., brings into the picture the subjunctive. Notably, enclisis with the subjunctive is doubly triggered: one encounters it both in nondirective contexts and in [+directive] contexts, but only the former distribution is indicative of a Romance V grammar. Naturally the imperative, whose trigger is a [+directive] feature, was not considered. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the following observations may be formulated. Auxiliary inversion (Table .), an unambiguous diagnostic for V-to-C movement, has an interesting diachrony: from a ratio of . per cent in th-century texts, it reaches its peak in the th century with . per cent, before gradually falling into disuse in the th century. This development has also been confirmed by Pană Afumatu () for a larger sample of texts. Thus the traditional observation that auxiliary inversion is at its peak in the th century and then its usage becomes gradually restricted is not entirely accurate. Two factors might explain this diachronic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



Century

Text

Proclisis (Cl-V)

Enclisis (V-Cl)

16th century

T . The proclisis–enclisis alternation with synthetic indicatives

CCat.1560 CPrav.1560–2 FT.1571–5 DÎ CM.1567

8 7 18 112 37

1 7 1 13 57

17th century

% 16th century

30.27% (o. 79)

9 14 19 125 94 100% (o. 261)

NT.1648 (20 p.)

105

7

112

LC.~1650

77

2

79

PI.~1650 (30 p.)

639

21

660

CZB.1675–6 DDL.1679 (100 p.) Fiz.1693

85

1

86

116

10

126

64

1

% 17th century

18th century

69.73% (o. 182)

TOTAL Proclisis & enclisis

AA.1708 ACP.1714 ULM.~1725 (20 p.) CLM.1700–50 (20 p.) NL.~1750–66 (20 p.)

% 18th century GLOBAL

96.28% (o. 1086)

3.72% (o. 42)

65 100% (o. 1128)

83 26

2 0

85 26

68

5

73

54

0

54

36

0

36

97.45% (o. 267)

2.55% (o. 7)

92.30% (o. 1535)

7.70% (o. 128)

100% (o. 274) 100% (o. 1663)

detour. On the one hand, the th century witnesses a stylistic and register diversification without parallel in the previous century – whose textual records consist of the non-translated documents collected in DÎ, alongside mostly religious translations (Timotin :–). On the other hand, after  inversion changes both its distribution, becoming unavailable in embedded clauses (§...), and its function, as it turns into a focus-marking strategy (§...). In other words, the th century represents the bridging moment between two grammars: V and focus marking. Pronominal enclisis (Tables . and .) occurs more frequently in the th century (. per cent considering only indicatives, Table .; . per cent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

16th century

Century

T . The proclisis–enclisis alternation with synthetic indicatives and subjunctives Proclisis (Cl-V)

Text

Indicative Subjunctive TOTAL Indicative Subjunctive TOTAL CCat.1560

8

11

19

1

1

7

50

57

7

0

7

64

FT.1571–5

18

16

34

1

0

1

35

DÎ

112

193

305

13

0

13

318

CM.1567

37

58

95

57

5

62

157

Total per form

69.73% (o. 182)

98.2% (o.328)

510

30.27% (o. 79)

1.8% (o. 6)

85

595

NT.1648 (20 p.)

17th century

2

TOTAL Proclisis & enclisis 21

CPrav.1560–2

Global 16th c.

85.71% (o. 510)

100% (o. 595)

14.29% (o. 85)

105

55

160

7

1

8

168

77

11

88

2

0

2

90

639

110

749

21

0

21

770

CZB.1675–6

85

9

94

1

0

1

95

DDL.1679 (100 p.)

116

52

168

10

2

12

180

81

1

0

1

82

1340

3.72% (o.42)

1.17% (o.3)

45

1385

LC.~1650 PI.~1650 (30 p.)

Fiz.1693

64

17

Total per form

96.28% (o. 1086)

98.83% (o.254)

Global 17th c.

18th century

Enclisis (V-Cl)

96.75% (o. 1340)

100% (o. 1385)

3.25% (o. 45)

AA.1708

83

52

135

2

0

2

137

ACP.1714

26

44

70

0

0

0

70

ULM.~1725 (20 p.)

68

33

101

5

0

5

106

CLM.1700–50 (20 p.)

54

29

83

0

0

0

83

NL.~1750–66 (20 p.)

36

54

90

0

0

0

90

Total per form

97.45% (o. 267)

100% (o.212)

479

2.55% (o.7)

0% (o. 0)

7

486

Global 18th c. Total per form GLOBAL

98.56% (o. 479) 92.30% (o. 1535)

98.88 % (o.794)

94.40% (o. 2329)

100% (o. 486)

1.44% (o. 7) 2329

7.70% (o.128)

1.12% (o. 9)

5.60% (o. 137)

137 100 % (o. 2466)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



considering indicatives and subjunctives, Table .) than V-Aux inversion (. per cent). The th century and the first part of the th century witness a heavy Old Church Slavonic influence through religious translations; recall that the enclisis of the reflexive clitic is the sole option in Old Church Slavonic (Olteanu ). However, in the non-translated documents of the th century (collected in DÎ), the proportion of V-Cl structures is closer to the proportion of V-Aux: . per cent for indicative V-Cl (Table .) and . per cent for V-Aux (Table .). Also, there is an interesting disparity between the indicative and the subjunctive, the former showing a bigger number of pronominal enclitics than the latter (even in the th century). This disparity is, however, not surprising, if we consider that subjunctives are mostly embedded and, as is known (and will be demonstrated in §... for OR), V is not impossible but restricted in embedded clauses. Putting together both diagnostics (and bearing in mind the P-ambiguity infused by pronominal enclisis), we may conclude that V is the residual option from the earliest texts and throughout OR. Even at its peak (the th–th centuries), regardless of the diagnostic employed, the proportion of V-to-C constructions is never higher than  out of . V radically diminishes in the th century; this result correlates with the disappearance of inversion from embedded clauses and the observed complementarity between constituent movement to focus and inversion: V-to-C movement becomes residual in the th century, specializing as a focalization strategy before finally being eliminated.

... The matrix–embedded asymmetry One of the features of old Romance relaxed V grammars is the matrix–embedded asymmetry: unlike in continental Germanic, where V is restricted to matrix clauses, in old Romance V systems V-to-C movement is available in embedded clauses too (Salvi :), albeit with a much lower frequency. Thus old Romance V may be characterized as featuring a statistical root–embedded asymmetry. According to the analysis proposed in §..., in OR V-to-C movement targets FinP. Several predictions follow from this analysis. First, V-to-C movement is not a priori blocked in embedded clauses and V-to-C movement does not interfere with the higher C-domain projections that accommodate complementizers and wh-elements (ForceP and FocP); furthermore, V-to-C movement should co-occur with complementizers and wh-elements. Second, if V is analysed as a strategy of valuing assertive force (Ledgeway ), then it is expected that embedded V is rare, owing to the restricted degree of assertiveness of embedded clauses, and that the availability of embedded V is dependent upon the degree of assertiveness of the embedded clause. Finally, since V-to-C movement targets the low C-projection FinP, a left periphery hosting pragmatically marked constituents should be available. All these predictions are verified in OR.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

First, V-to-C movement is most frequently available in embedded clauses headed by complementizers (), but wh-elements are also possible (): () Adevăr grăesc voao că veni-vor truth speak... you.. that come.=.. toate acestea spre neamul acesta all these towards people. this ‘Truth I speak to you that all these will come towards this people’ (NT.:r) () Cine amu împreună cu viat¸a aceasta who therefore together with life. this iubit-au dulceat¸a love.=..≡ pleasure. ‘who loved the pleasure that accompanied life’ (CC2.:) Second, there appears to be a preference for embedded V to occur in clauses with a high degree of assertiveness: argument clauses headed by complementizers () (frequently selected by verba dicendi, see () ) and by adverbial clauses (of reason, of condition, of time, etc.) headed by wh-elements () or complementizers (). Embedded V with relative clauses (arguments or nominal modifiers), which show a lower degree of assertiveness, is very rare (); () (= () supra). () să să ştie că [ . . . ] ˘ . .. know.. that socotit-am dintru inma mea consider.=.. from heart. my ‘it should be known that I have carefully considered . . . ’ (DÎ.:X) () Atunce cându întoarce-se-va then when return.=..=.. vrăjimaşul24 mieu înderretu enemy. my back ‘then when my enemy will return’ (PH.–:r) () ispovedescu-mă numelui tău, [ . . . ] confess...=.. name.. your că de toată grijea izbăvitu-m-ai because of all trouble save.=..=.. ‘I confess in your name, because you saved me of all my trouble’ (CM.:r) 24 The transcription of the word vrăjimaşul differs from that of the philological edition PH.–, which is vrăjimaş

ui; the addition in < > belongs to the editor.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



() zmeul aceala ce fapt-ai dragon. that which make.=.. ‘that dragon you made’ (CM.:v) The left periphery, hosting constituents displaced to the left edge of the clause, is available in embedded V clauses such as () – see also () and (). On the basis of a thorough investigation of CC2., Zafiu (:) concludes that auxiliary inversion in embedded clauses appears to be triggered by ‘the same focalizations/ topicalizations as in main clauses’. (Left-peripheral elements are doubly underlined.) () vă dămu în ştire că, acumu, în ceastă lună .. give... in news that now in this month a lu avgust  de zile, venit-au lu ..  August  of days come.=..  Mihaiu vodă steagu de la împăratul turcescu Michael voivode flag. from emperor. Turkish ‘we are letting you know that now, in this month of August on the th, a flag (= small unit of armed soldiers) came to Voivode Michael from the Turkish emperor’ (DÎ.:XVIII) Before proceeding to quantitative analysis, it should be mentioned that there are two types of ‘ambiguous’ structures, which occur rarely but do have relevance for the statistics: subordinate clauses without an overt subordinator; and main clauses introduced by a complementizer. Subordinate clauses without an overt subordinator represent a phenomenon that has gone unnoticed in the literature (except for Nicolae c:), owing to its very rare occurrence. Specifically, embedded V may cause the omission of the if/whether complementizer in a purely conditional clause (a) or in an embedded polar interrogative (b), subordination being thus exclusively marked by inversion. Examples such as (a) are syntactically akin to English type III conditionals with subject–auxiliary inversion (SAI), where V-to-C movement blocks the insertion of the conditional complementizer. () a. √ Face-veri dumneata acest lucru, noa do.=.. you. this thing us. părea-va foarte drag seem.=.. very dear ‘If you do this thing, we would be very happy’ (DÎ.:XCV) b. Nu ştim √ avut-au vină not know... have.=.. guilt au n-au avut or not=.. have. ‘We don’t know whether he was guilty or not’ (DÎ.:CXV)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

On the other hand, inversion is rarely attested in another type of ambiguous structures: in main clauses introduced by the complementizer că (). () Că numai însuşi el [ . . . ] mântui-ne-va den that only himself he save.=..=.. from păgubitură, că el au rodit cerul şi pămîntul perdition because he .. made. sky. and earth. ‘Only he himself will save us from perdition, because he made the sky and the earth’ (FT.–:v) Ambiguous structures, which have very few occurrences, count as a separate category. Turning to the figures now, as before (§...), the root–embedded asymmetry has been examined by keeping the two diagnostics distinct: Table . depicts the root–embedded asymmetry on the basis of auxiliary inversion (unambiguously diagnosing V-to-C movement), while Table . is based on pronominal enclisis (which is P-ambiguous between V‑to‑C and V‑to‑I; see §...). Tables . and . show that inversion in embedded clauses is represented with a low frequency in the th century and in the first half of the th century regardless of the diagnostic employed. There is, of course, variation from text to text, but the existence of embedded V-to-C movement in embedded clauses cannot be denied. In the second part of the th century, embedded V‑to-C movement is almost completely absent. To sum up, the root–embedded asymmetry specific to old Romance V is also documented for the V-to-C structures of OR.

... Reanalysis of V as a focus-marking strategy The relation between movement to focus and inversion has been repeatedly highlighted in previous sections. V-to-C movement assumes a focus-marking function, especially in the Moldovan Chronicles (the analysed versions of manuscripts date back to the th century, although the actual Chronicles were written earlier). This function is diagnosed syntactically by the almost perfect complementary distribution between movement to focus and inversion (see Hill and Alboiu : §) and by V focal inversion (§...). This specialization for focus marking correlates chronologically with the disappearance of inversion in embedded clauses (§...) one the one hand and with the gradual disappearance of V-to-C (§...) on the other. Even in earlier texts, inversion is put to use as a chiasmus strategy (Croitor ; Zafiu ), participating in the marking of scalar or emphatic focus. Example () features a coordinated sentence and, importantly, inversion occurs in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus

17th century

16th century

Century

T . The matrix–embedded asymmetry; diagnostic: auxiliary inversion Text

Embedded clause

V-Aux V-Cl-Aux V-Aux V-Cl-Aux 0 1 2 1 CCat.1560 3 1 4 1 0 1 CPrav.1560–2 5 1 7 0 0 0 FT.1571–5 7 0 51 6 3 0 DÎ 57 3 3 16 36 1 CM.1567 19 37 64.54% 29.79% Global 16th c. (o.91) (o.42) 11 1 2 2 NT.1648 (20 p.) 12 4 10 1 0 0 LC.~1650 11 0 0 7 4 0 PI.~1650 (30 p.) 11 0 4 0 0 0 CZB.1675–6 4 0 5 17 0 0 DDL.1679 22 0 (100 p.) 0 18 93.98% (o.78) 2 3 5 0 1 1 9 6 15

0

CLM.1700–50 (20 p.)

13

2

0

NL.~1750–66 (20 p.)

7

1

0

Fiz.1693 Global 17th c. AA.1708 18th century

Matrix clause

ACP.1714 ULM.~1725 (20 p.)

18

15

0

0 0

0 4.82% (o. 4) 0 0 0 0

0

Ambiguous clauses (beginning with că) V-Aux 0 0 0 5 0

0

V-Cl-Aux 0

0 3 5 0 5.67% (o. 8)

0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 1 0 1.20% (o. 1) 0 0 0 0

8

0

0

Global 18th c.

100% (o. 44)

0% (o. 0)

0% (o. 0)

GLOBAL

213 || 79.5 %

46 || 17 %

9 || 3.5 %

0 3

TOTAL 4 6 10

0

65

0

56 100% (o. 141)

0

16

0

11

0

11

0

4

1

23

0

18 100% (o. 83)

0

5

0

1

0

15

0

15

0

8 100% (o. 44) 268 || 100%

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

Century

T . The matrix–embedded asymmetry; diagnostic: pronominal enclisis Text

16th century

CCat.1560

Matrix clause (V-Cl) Ind 1 7

FT.1571–5

1

CM.1567

17th century

LC.~1650 PI.~1650 (30 p.) CZB.1675–6 DDL.1679 (100 p.) Fiz.1693 Global 17th c. AA.1708

18th century

ACP.1714 ULM.~1725 (20 p.) CLM.1700–50 (20 p.) NL.~1760–66 (20 p.) Global 18th c. GLOBAL

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

9

1

2

21

1

0

0

0

0

10 1

12

1 97.8% (0. 44) 2 2 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 100% (0. 7)

0

0 0

0 0

1

0 1

21 1

2 11 12.94% (0. 11)

7 2

0 0

48 80% (0. 68) 6

0 0

10 45

0 0

1 10

Subj 0 0

7

Global 16th c. NT.1648 (20 p.)

Ind 0

2

CPrav.1560–2

DÎ

Subj 1

Embedded clause (V-Cl)

2 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 2.2% (0. 1) 0

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

119 || 86,86%

0

0

Ambiguous clauses (begining with că) 0

TOTAL 2

0

7

0

1

3

13

3

62

7.06% (0. 6)

100% (0. 85)

0

8

0

2

0

21

0

1

0

12

0

1

0% (0. 0)

100% (0. 45)

0

2

0

0

0

5

0

0

0 0% (0. 0)

0

0

0% (0. 0)

12 || 8,75%

6 || 4,37%

100% (0. 7) 137 || 100%

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Old Romanian inversion: from residual V to focus



second conjunct. The inverted sequence is preceded by a constituent displaced to the left periphery, the entire [XP – inversion sequence] being organized in a [topic – focus] arrangement in which alternatives are ranked on a pragmatic scale (Fauconnier ). () Şi tot¸i cei ce [ . . . ] va priimi şi and all those who .. receive. and viat¸a de veacŭ dobândi-va life. of ages acquire.= .. ‘and all those who [ . . . ] will receive and will acquire eternal life’ (CC2.:) However, even in the Moldovan Chronicles, inversion may occur in the presence of foci – as shown by () (=(a)), where inversion occurs in the presence of verum focus. () [Şi vădzindŭ şi pre Ştefan vodă în turburări totdeauna şi despre ai săi şi despre streini, l‑au mazilit, luându-lŭ în obédzi din T¸ara Muntenească, iară domniia, în locul lui, au datŭ Radului vodă, carile are nume în ¸t ară, de-i dzicŭ Radul vodă cel Mare.] Şi cu adevăratŭ cade-i-să acestŭ nume and with truth deserves=..=.. this name în veaci să aibă in eternity ˘ . have.. ‘[And also seeing Voivode Stephen always anxious about his folks and about the aliens, they deposed him, taking him in handcuffs form Wallachia, and the reign, instead of him, was given to Voivode Radu, whose name in the country is Voivode Radu the Great.] And he certainly deserves to have this name forever’ (CLM.‑:r) In order to resolve the tension between the analysis of V-to-C movement as raising to FinP and the often observed focus-marking function of inversion – unsystematic in the early texts, systematic in the th-century chronicles – I claim that the relation between inversion and focalization is formally mediated via syntactic Agree, not via syntactic movement to (Spec,)FocP. Assuming that focus is formalized as an interpretable feature [iFocus] hosted by the Foc0, this interpretable feature deletes in an Agree configuration the unvalued feature [ufocus] of the inverted verb in Spec,FinP (hence accounting for the relation between inversion and focalization), or of the focused constituent co-occurring with the inverted verb. The derivation () depicts the first situation, where, in a V construction with inversion, the inverted verb marks presentational or information focus (the example, in full form, is (), and its discussion is given at §...).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

() Dat-au Ştefan vodă give.pple=aux.perf.3sg Stephen voivode

(ULM.~1725:M.f.41r)

FocP Foc0 [ifocus]

FinP VP [ufocus]

AGREE

Fin’ Fin0

(FOCUS

MoodP Mood0

VALUATION)

dat

…

au

The second situation is depicted in (), on the basis of example (); here [uFocus] is valued by the constituent movement to Spec,FocP, without the involvement of the inverted verb. Technically, Agree and deletion of [ufocus] feature of the focused XP precedes movement to Spec,FocP; alternatively, Reverse Agree (Zeijlstra ) or Spec-Head may be invoked. ()

Şi cu adevăratŭ cade-i-să (CLM.1700–50:178r) deserves=cl.dat.3sg=cl.refl.3sg and with truth FocP

PP [ufocus]

Foc’ Foc0 [ifocus]

FinP VP

Fin’ Fin0

PersP ϕP

Pers’ Pers0

PersP ϕP

cu adevăratu

cade

i

(…)

se

To conclude, the analysis presented here accounts for the observed relation between movement to C and focalization, preserving the intuition that even in the later texts, where V-to-C is residual and becomes a focus-marking strategy, OR is still a Fin-V system (in the terminology of Wolfe a). The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Parameter resetting in a broader comparative perspective



reanalysis of V as a focus-marking strategy is mediated by feature valuation, not by V-to-Foc movement.

... Summary: On the diachrony of V in old Romanian This section has shown that V was residual since the earliest Romanian writings of the th century. The th-century witnesses an increase in the productivity of V-to-C movement – as diagnosed by auxiliary inversion (see Table .), but not by pronominal enclisis (cf. Table .) – prior to the rapid elimination of this Vmovement option by the end of the th century. In tandem, we observe a specialization of V-to-C movement as a focus-marking strategy, which diachronically correlates with the decrease in frequency of V-to-C movement and with its complete restriction to matrix clauses. Early modern (i.e. post-) Romanian shows only vestiges of V-Aux and V-Cl inversion, used as a narrative device in the classical literature of the th century, not as a genuine norm of the period.

. PARAMETER RESETTING IN A BROADER COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Understood as a structural condition broadly requiring V-to-C movement alongside the optional fronting of one or more pragmatically marked constituents to the clausal left periphery, the relaxed V grammar characteristic of the old Romance varieties is residually active since the earliest Romanian writings of the th century, gradually falling into disuse by the end of timespan conventionally labelled ‘OR’, the end of the th century. All the features of old Romance V grammars (reviewed in §..) are also present in the OR clauses analysed as instantiating V: (i) V requires V-to-C movement – specifically, OR is a Fin-V system, in Wolfe’s (a) terminology; (ii) there is no ‘bottleneck effect’, as shown by the existence of (non-interrogative) V constructions, as well as of V and V constructions resulting from the fronting of multiple constituents to the left periphery; (iii) the preverbal field is not specialized for accommodating the subject; (iv) there is a statistical matrix–embedded asymmetry, whose existence has been linked here with the function of old Romance V (a strategy for valuing assertive force: see Ledgeway ). The distribution of V prior to its complete elimination in the passage to MR is reanalysed as a mechanism for marking and licensing focalization (Alboiu, Hill, and Sitaridou ; Hill and Alboiu ) – a diachronic path familiar in the Romance languages (cf. Cruschina  for Italo-Romance; Parodi ; Sitaridou  for Ibero-Romance). The V system, whose roots can be traced to late Latin V-fronting – which had a double trigger, pragmatic–stylistic and syntactic (Mihăescu :; Salvi :–; Ledgeway :–, a; see also the extensive discussion in Devine and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Inversion as a residual old Romance V grammar

Stephens :–), in an already articulate C-domain (Salvi ; Ledgeway ) – was at its peak in old Romance in the th–th centuries. For example, in the th century French is no longer a V language, as shown by Adams (:: ‘[a]lthough the V construction remained an occasional option to writers of the sixteenth century, it is clear that one can no longer speak of a V constraint’) and by Roberts (:: ‘a major change occurred between the early th century and the early th century. It would certainly be reasonable to say that by the mid-th century, or perhaps, given the figures from Calvin . . . the s, French was no longer a V language’). Thus the residual nature of V in th-century Romanian is in line to the general diachrony witnessed by the Romance languages. The particular manner in which V is satisfied in OR – by displacing the lexical verb to the lowest projection of the C-domain, FinP, which on the surface results in V-Aux and V-Cl inversion – has been also signalled for other Romance languages (for old Spanish and old Portuguese by Rivero ) and overlaps with the so-called ‘long head movement’ pattern, which is well spread and productive in the Balkan Sprachbund (Rivero ). This particular actualization of V in OR contributes once again to the characterization of Romanian as a Romance language in a Balkan suit and verifies Fontana’s (:) observation that, ‘as more knowledge of a wider range of data becomes available to researchers, it is becoming more clear that a homogeneous formal treatment for all the languages usually associated with the V label is not well supported’. Among other things, the analysis for OR also provides a solution to what can be called ‘Poletto’s conundrum’ (Poletto :–): what is the target of V-to-C movement, and does the difference between Romance and Germanic V follow from the locus targeted by movement? The behaviour of the subjunctive complementizer să unambiguously indicates that the projection targeted by V-to-C movement in the residual V phase of Romanian is FinP. Under the generally accepted analysis of continental Germanic V as involving movement to ForceP, Poletto’s conjecture appears to be thus correct, at least from the perspective of OR. Equally importantly, pronominal enclisis has been shown to be compatible with both a V-to-C and a V-to-I analysis of verb movement, therefore generating Pambiguity. Especially with reference to the th century, pronominal enclitic structures have been considered to result from the influence of Old Church Slavonic on OR translations (see Stan b:–, with references), as reflexive pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic are always enclitic (Olteanu :; Willis :). Once it has been shown that OR pronominal enclisis may reflect an I-oriented and a v-oriented pronominal cliticization site (in the framework established by Benincà and Tortora , ; Tortora ), both available in Romance to different extents, Old Church Slavonic reflexive enclisis may be understood as actually consolidating an option of Romanian, indirectly supporting the V grammar in as much as pronominal enclisis is also compatible with a V-to-C grammar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

3 Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core Interpolation, scrambling, and related phenomena . INTRODUCTION

..  :       This chapter analyses a series of distinct phenomena whose common feature is nonadjacency between functional elements (auxiliary verbs, pronominal clitics, and, marginally, the Fin0 subjunctive complementizer să and the clausal negator nu) and the lexical verb. Thus, in contrast to MR, where only clitic adverbs may break the adjacency between higher functional elements and the lexical verb (see §..), in OR phrasal elements may intervene between the auxiliary verb and the lexical verb (example (a)), between the auxiliary verb + auxiliary verb and the lexical verb (example (b)), between the pronominal clitic + auxiliary verb and the lexical verb (example (c)), or between the pronominal clitic (example ()) / subjunctive complementizer (example ()) and the lexical verb; XP-interposition is not limited to a single constituent (example ()) (Dragomirescu ). Throughout the chapter, the elements of the cluster have been boldfaced, and the intervening XPs have been underlined. () a. când va Domnedzeu căuta when .. God look.after. ‘when God will look after you’ (PO.:)

pre 

voi you..

b. Iar de-ai hi domiata sârguit and if=.. be. you... strive. să fii până acmu venit ˘. be.. until now come. ‘And if you had striven to have come until now’ (DÎ.:XCIII) Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. First edition. Alexandru Nicolae. © Alexandru Nicolae . First published  by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core c. se-au măria lui sculat den moarte ..=.. highness. his rise. from death ‘His Highness rose from dead’ (CM.:r)

() de se Daniilŭ prorocŭ spământă if .. Daniel prophet get.frightened... ‘if Daniel the prophet gets frightened’ (CC2.:) () cum se rrugăcinri facă spre elu that ˘. prayers make.. towards him. ‘in order for them to utter prayers to him’ (CV.–:v) () deaca nu va omul pre ceastă lume, în viiat¸a sa, if not .. man. on this world in life. his purta grije pre ispăsenia sufletului său bear. care for redemption. soul.. his ‘if the man won’t take care of the redemption of his soul in this world’ (CC1.:r) The existence of discontiguous linearizations such as those in ()–() is documented in traditional scholarship (Densusianu , II; Rosetti ; Moldovanu –; Dragoş ; Todi ; Sala ; Avram  [] ; Stan b); discontiguous linearizations with auxiliary verbs have been examined from a formal perspective by Dragomirescu (, ), Nicolae (c) and Alboiu and Hill (). A different set of data, illustrating two related, but essentially different phenomena is given in () and (). In (), there is an intervening (pronominal) subject between the wh-phrase and the lexical verb (more rarely, full DP subjects and constituents other than the subject may intervene). In contrast to OR, in MR and in many modern Romance languages (Spanish, French, European Portuguese, and Italian; see Zubizarreta ), in non-embedded wh-interrogatives, the adjacency between the wh-phrase and the verb cannot be broken by an intervening subject. This word order pattern was first identified in OR and discussed by Dragomirescu () and is also available in Caribbean Spanish (Gutiérrez-Bravo ; Suñer ; Ordóñez and Olarrea ) and Moldovan Daco-Romanian (Costea a, b). () De unde tu vii? from where you.. come... ‘Where are you coming from?’ (BB.:) Examples such as () feature a modal complex predicate made up of the modal verb putea (‘can, be able to’) and a bare short infinitive; complex (a) or multiple (b) constituents may intervene between the modal verb and the infinitive. While the modal verb and its infinitival complement are not strictly adjacent in MR, the interposition of constituents is limited to at most one, preferably light, constituent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Introduction



(a pronoun, a short adverb, etc.) (Nedelcu :–). This phenomenon has been previously discussed in the literature on OR (Todi : with reference to the Wallachian chronicles; Dragomirescu ; Stan b:; Nicolae c:– etc.). () a. să le putem cu drag mare asculta ˘. ... can.. with joy great listen. ‘so that we can listen to them with great joy’ (CM.:v) cu faptele sale dereage b. nu poate nimea not can... nobody with deeds. his mend. păcatul său sin. his ‘nobody is able to mend his sin with his own deeds’ (CC1.:v)

..    This chapter focuses especially on the constructions illustrated in examples (), (), and (). While unified by the non-adjacency between higher functional elements and the lexical verb, the discontiguous linearizations presented in ()–() have been considered different phenomena (and labelled accordingly) in the Romance literature. The separation of the auxiliary verb(s) from the lexical verb () is generally treated under the label ‘scrambling’ (e.g. Martins ; Mensching ; Poletto ). The separation of the clitic pronoun from the finite verb by intervening XPs () was first systematically investigated with reference to old Spanish by the philologist Winthrop Holt Chénery, who also proposed the term ‘interpolation’, still currently employed (cf. Poole ). Before Chénery’s () study, interpolation structures are noticed, but not systematically investigated, in Diez (), von Reinhardstoettner (), Foerster (), Thurneysen (), Gessner (), and Meyer-Lübke (). As will be shown throughout this chapter, there are important similarities (as well as dissimilarities) between interpolation and scrambling in OR; hence I have chosen to coin the blanket term ‘discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core’, which brings the phenomena examined under a common denominator. The term ‘interpolation’ has an unambiguous denotation, as it labels discontiguous structures of the type Cl – XP* – V, without necessarily implying a particular formal analysis of the phenomenon. Rather, as acknowledged by Poole (:, n. ) with reference to old Spanish, ‘[i]nterpolation phenomena exist in other medieval Romance varieties, but seem to have different properties from interpolation in old Spanish, suggesting that different processes are at work’. However, the particular case of scrambling is more problematic; while there is evidence for clause-internal movement of some of the intervening XPs, the examination of the empirical data of OR indicates that the lexical

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

verb occupies a lower position in the clausal spine (and that auxiliaries preserve their IP-related position), hence the height of verb raising is the essential property of the (Cl –) Aux – XP* – V structures of OR. Thus, under these circumstances, a more appropriate term, which is not tied to a particular formal analysis (XPmovement to a specifier position in the IP-domain, for which see Martins ; XP-movement to the low, vP-periphery, for which see Poletto ; Aux-to-C movement, for which see Alboiu and Hill ), is ‘discontiguous verbal clusters’. This chapter retains from the previous one the theoretical framework and the empirical findings established so far. More precisely, I adopt the hypothesis that the IP-domain consists of several functional fields, hierarchically ordered: (CP-domain >) Mood-field > Tense-field > Aspect-field (>vP-domain),1 (see §.., with references). The Cinquean adverbs2 contribute to the finer-grained intra- and inter-field diagnosing of the height of V-raising. With respect to the parametric settings of OR, recall that (i) clausal negation is constantly placed at the border between the CP-domain and the IP-domain (§....); (ii) OR possesses two types of auxiliary verbs, namely auxiliaries that lexicalize a Mood0-head and tense-inflecting (non-passive) auxiliaries, merged in a lower IP-head (presumably, a T0-head or an Asp0-head, with subsequent head-movement to the highest TAM head in the IP-domain, Mood0), and only the former type was retained in the passage from OR to MR (§....); (iii) proclitic pronouns are systematically I-oriented, while enclitic pronouns are compatible with two cliticization sites (§...). Supplementary theoretical details will be provided when necessary.

..    The goal of the chapter is to provide a comprehensive analysis of interpolation (§.) and discontiguous verbal clusters (§.) in OR. In addition to putting forward formal syntactic analyses of these phenomena, I combine the results of previous studies with 1

With reference to Romanian, comprehensive evidence for this hierarchy is given in Nicolae (c:–) (also adopted by Schifano ), where the framework established by Cinque () is also tested against the Mirror Principle in Baker () (recently revamped by Harley ). 2 The updated version of Cinque’s () hierarchy in (i) is taken from Ledgeway and Lombardi (:); Ledgeway (in press c); Schifano (:): (i)

a. High adverb space [frankly Moodspeech act [unfortunately Moodevaluative [apparently Moodevidential [probably Modepistemic [now T(past/future) [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive(event) [often Aspfrequentative(event) [intentionally Modvolitional [slowly Aspcelerative(event) b. Low adverb space [not Negpresuppositional [already T(anterior) [anymore Aspterminative [still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect [hardly Neg [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative [briefly Aspdurative [typically Aspgeneric/progressive [almost Aspprospective [completely AspSgCompletive(event) [everything AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast Aspcelerative(process) [again Asprepetitive(process) [often Aspfrequentative(process) [completely AspSgCompletive(process) [v-VP . . .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Introduction



a more extensive examination of the corpus in order to determine the textual and diachronic distribution of these phenomena and, implicitly, their status in the grammatical architecture of OR. (‘Textual’ refers here to occurrence in both translated and non-translated texts.) The other types of discontiguous linearizations, introduced in () and (), support the formal analyses proposed for interpolation and discontiguous verbal clusters; these are examined in §.. Discontiguous linearizations involving wh-phases () appear to be tied to properties of the clausal left periphery (Dragomirescu ) and do not have a direct bearing on the analysis of interpolation and discontiguous verbal clusters, hence they are not considered here. Section §. puts together the findings of this chapter and those of the previous one and draws a more general conclusion on the Latin-to-Romance diachrony of V-to-I raising, as seen from the perspective of OR. Diachronic analysis unavoidably faces an important analytical predicament: the only data available for examination are those provided by the extant textual evidence. Thus an analysis along the lines of Ledgeway and Lombardi (), who exhaustively test the distribution of the diagnostic adverbials for V-raising in a group of southern Italian dialects featuring interpolation, is hard to undertake given the limitations of diachronic analysis. It is also important to mention that there are certain structures that are only apparently included in the class of discontiguous linearizations. One of these is the interposition of constituents between the passive auxiliary and the passive participle with analytic be-passives (), which apparently gives rise to a discontiguous verbal cluster. The be-passive, which is based on an indirect derivation (cf. Collins ; Roberts ), is radically different from all other auxiliary-verb constructions (see also n.  in chapter ), since the auxiliary and the passive participle do not actually form a cluster, as do the other analytic forms. For example, in contrast to the other analytic forms that may undergo V-Aux inversion (see chapter  for details), the passive participle undergoes VP-topicalization across the passive auxiliary even when the clausal negator is present; furthermore, the topicalized VP may pied-pipe constituents internal to the participial phrase across the passive auxiliary, an option not available with any of the other V-Aux structures (see Nicolae c:, n. ). In contrast to interpolation and discontiguous verbal clusters, which became extinct, examples such as () are still grammatical in modern and contemporary Romanian, which shows that the non-adjacency between the passive auxiliary and the passive participle is of a different kind.3 For this reason analytic passives have not been taken into consideration in my analysis.

3 The literature on (Romance) passives acknowledges the difference between so-called ‘verbal’ passives and ‘adjectival’ passives. In many Romance varieties, this difference is marked variously through the choice of the passive auxiliary and the form of the participle (for details, see Ledgeway in press b). The fact that the passive auxiliary and the participle do not form a cluster across Romance

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

() auzi Iisus că iaste Ioan prins hear... Jesus that be... John capture... ‘Jesus heard that John is/has been captured’ (NT.:r) Other methodological remarks will be introduced along the way.

. INTERPOLATION: ROMANCE AND OLD ROMANIAN This section is devoted to the analysis of interpolation in OR and organized into two parts. In the first part I examine the textual and diachronic distribution of interpolation in OR and establish its Romance correspondents. Then, on the basis of the distributional features of OR interpolated structures, I put forward a formal analysis of interpolation in OR.

..  , ,    Interpolation is at its peak in the earliest Romanian writings of the th century (see example ()). Although it displays low (i.e. statistically inconsequential) frequency, this phenomenon is attested in most th-century translated texts and continues into the th and early th century (see examples () and () respectively). Although its frequency gradually decreases, in certain texts such as CD. it occurs more frequently, being used as a stylistic device (Nicolae and Niculescu :). In the th century, interpolation is attested only in translations; however, this th-century distribution should not be taken as an indication that structures with interpolation faithfully mimic the word order of the foreign source. Interpolation is attested both in translations from different sources and in texts written directly in Romanian over the following two centuries. () Iară noi nebunii, deaca ne noi and we fools. if .. we ‘and we the fools, if we get sick’ (CC1.:v)

bolnăvim get.sick...

might also be related to the different features of the (verbal) passive participle, which are spelled out syntactically in a difference in verb movement across Romance, passive participles moving very low, unlike active participles (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.). See, among others, Cinque :–, –; Abeillé and Godard :; Nicolae c:, n. ; Ledgeway in press b.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Interpolation: Romance and old Romanian ()



De să va prileji să if .. .. happen. ˘. să cumva vearse potiriul cu darurile .. somehow spill.. chalice. with gifts. ‘and if it should happen that the chalice with gifts get spilled’ (ŞT.:)

() neavândŭ loc să să mai sus suie -have. place ˘. .. more high climb.. ‘not having the space to climb higher’ (CLM.–:v) Interpolation is attested throughout Romance, both in early and in modern varieties. It is attested in early Ibero-Romance – old Portuguese (example (); see Martins ), old Spanish (example (); see Rivero  and Poole ); in old ItaloRomance – early Neapolitan, early Sicilian, early Tuscan (Ledgeway and Lombardi ; Roberts , with references); across modern Italo-Romance (example ()) – mostly but not only in southern varieties, including northern Campanian varieties such as Casertano, Salentino, central Apennine dialects, and Triestino (see Ledgeway and Lombardi , with references); in modern Galician (example ()), where it is considered a conservative phenomenon; in dialectal European Portuguese (Dubert and Galves :–; Roberts :); and in standard European Portuguese embedded clauses with the clausal negator não ‘not’, especially in formal, written registers, which suggests that it is an archaism in modern Portuguese (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.). Interpolation is also documented in Istro-Romanian (Zegrean ), where it has been interpreted as an archaic phenomenon preserved as a result of intensive contact with Croatian (Dragomirescu and Nicolae ). () E com todas as pertenças que aos ditos and with all the belongings that to-the mentioned casaes lhes dereitamẽte perte˜çe properties them- rightly belongs ‘and with everything which according to the terms of the contract is part of the mentioned properties’ (old Portuguese; Martins :) () se me non quisieres creer if me not wish.. believe. ‘if you do not wish to believe me’ (old Spanish; Poole :) () un mi cchiù parra not me=anymore he-speaks ‘he doesn’t speak to me anymore’ (northern Calabrian dialect of Cosenza; Ledgeway and Lombardi :) () o día que se un casa the day that .. one marry. ‘the day that one marries’ (Galician; Dubert and Galves :)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

() rei te tu marita dupa míre? .. .. you.. marry. after me. ‘Will you marry me? (Istro-Romanian; Dragomirescu and Nicolae :) Despite the common trait characterizing all cases of interpolation, namely the separation of the clitic pronoun from the verb, the structures with interpolation exhibit important differences across the varieties in which they occur. The most important point of divergence concerns the range of the admissible interpolated material. In one set of languages, interpolation is limited to light(er) elements: dialectal European Portuguese allows for the interpolation of personal pronouns, of negation, and of adverbs (Dubert and Galves ), in old Spanish the interpolated constituent may be a (personal pronoun) subject, a negator (this is the most common occurrence), an adverb, or a non-finite verb form (Poole ), while Galician allows for the interpolation of negation, of personal pronouns (mostly eu ‘I’), and of the indeterminate pronoun un ‘one’ (Dubert and Galves ). By contrast, old Portuguese allows for the interpolation of heavy and multiple elements (Martins ) of a type not seen in old Spanish (Poole ); citing Álvarez and Xove’s Gramática da lingua galega of , Dubert and Galves () report that dialectal Galician allows for the interpolation of heavier elements such as PPs, doubling pronouns, and subjects. Finally, in southern Italo-Romance only adverbs from the lower portion of Cinque’s () hierarchy – the ‘lower pre-VP adverbs’ – may be interpolated (Ledgeway and Lombardi ). Thus it is safe to conclude that interpolation is not a uniform phenomenon (as repeatedly signalled in the literature), hence the correct understanding of the processes that lie behind the separation of the clitic pronoun from the verb should be sought in the internal makeup of the structures with interpolation, which should be analysed for each language in part.

..       ... Morphological properties Interpolation is specific to synthetic verb forms and occurs with most of those found in OR: the indicative present in (), the simple past in (), the imperfect in (), the present subjunctive in (). Exceptionally, the positive imperative may not undergo V-to-C movement and may be found in interpolation structures, as happens in example (); note that V-to-C movement is optional in the second conjunct with coordinated imperatives (see Nicolae c: for details). Also very rare is interpolation with infinitives (). The present subjunctive is frequently attested in interpolation structures (Densusianu , II:).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Interpolation: Romance and old Romanian



() ce se dereptŭ mult¸i varsă întru but .. for many shed... in lâsâciunile pâcatelor forgiveness... sins.. ‘which is shed for many in order for their sins to be forgiven’? (CT.–:r) () ce-l Dumnezeu învise whom=... God. raise.. ‘whom God raised from the dead’ (CB.–:) () nu-şŭ pre niminea prepunea not=...  nobody suspect... ‘he was not suspecting anyone’ (CC2.:) () nu grăbi pre noi tu să not rush..  us. you.. ˘. noi giudeci pren greşeala noastră us. judge.. through mistake. our ‘don’t rush to judge us through our mistake’ (FT.–:r)

elŭ he

ne ..

cu femeaia () şi te -mpreună bucură and .. together enjoy.. with woman. ‘and enjoy it together with the woman’ (DPar.:II.r) () Şi aşa fu a se tot¸i mântui and so be... . .. all save. ‘and this way they all found salvation’ (CV.–:r) Importantly, in the extensive corpus analysis undertaken here, interpolation with analytic forms (i.e. linearizations of the type Cl – XP – Aux – V) is never found; rather, pronominal clitics and auxiliary verbs always cluster together, and the only possible discontiguous linearizations are of the type Cl – Aux – XP* – V (examples such as () will analysed in §.). All types of pronominal clitics may be found in interpolation: non-reflexive accusative clitics – examples (), (); non-reflexive dative clitics – example (); reflexive accusative clitics – examples (), (), (); reflexive dative clitics – example (); and reflexive passive clitics – example (). () Fă, fiiule, cealea ce-t¸ eu do.. son.. those which=.. I poruncesc şi te mântuiaşte order... and .. save.. ‘Son, do what I order you and save yourself ’ (DPar.:II:r)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

() Iară să se atâta osândescŭ ceia ce [ . . . ] and if .. so.much punish... those who ‘and if those who [ . . . ] are so intensely punished’ (CC2.:)

... Range of interpolated constituents OR interpolation is characterized by a broad range of interpolated constituents (Densusianu , II:). In the set of examples ()–(), there is an interpolated pronominal ((); see also ()) or nominal ((), ()) DP subject. () Tatăl milostiv, ce te noi uluimu father. merciful whom .. we confess... ‘Merciful father, whom we confess’ (CM.:v) spune () cela ce-l Pavel that that=... Paul. tell... ‘which Paul confesses’ (CB.–:) () şi să te ochiul tău and if .. eye.. your săblâzneaşte scoate-l bring.into.temptation... take.out..=... ‘and if your eye brings you into temptation, take it out!’ (CT.–:r) Direct objects ((); see also () and ()) and indirect objects ((); along with a vocative, cf. (a)) are also among the constituents that may be interpolated: () Şi ne pre noi and ..  us. ‘and He freed us’ (FT.–:r)

slobozi free...

rog () a. Şi mă, Doamne, ¸tie and .. Lord. you.. pray... cu sete with thirst ‘and, God, I pray to you intensely’ (DPV.:) b. Ce se voao pare what .. you.. seem... ‘What do you think of Christ?’ (CT.–:r)

de of

Hristos? Christ

Adverbs, as in (), are also among the constituents interpolated; note that pururea (‘always’) in (a) and iară (‘again’) in (b) are part of the set of Cinquean diagnostic adverbs for V-movement (merging in the lower pre-VP area and lexicalizing an Aspperfect specifier and, respectively, an Asprepetitive specifier).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Interpolation: Romance and old Romanian



() a. ce se pururea pomeneaşte which .. always mention... ‘which is always mentioned’ (Prav.:r) b. Să nu te iară în patŭ răstorni ˘. not .. again in bed return.. ‘you should not return to bed again’ (CC2.:) pedepseş c. aşa ne tare so .. firmly punish... ‘you punish us so hard’ (FT.–:v) d. Nu vă foarte bucuraret¸ not .. a.lot rejoice.. ‘Do not rejoice a lot’ (VN.–:v) e. numele nu să nice povesteaşte name. not .. even tell... ‘his name is not even told’ (CLM.–:v) PPs represent another set of constituents that may be interpolated: () a. să ne prentru eale ˘. .. through them. ‘to be saved through them’ (CCat.:r)

ispăsim save..

îmbrăcă b. şi se în sac and .. in hemp dress... ‘and he dressed in hemp’ (PO.:) c. ce să în voroavă tocmăsc who .. in word haggle... în numele Tău in name. your ‘who with words haggle in Your name’ (DDL.:) The interpolation of (floating) quantifier subjects is rare, but attested in the corpus in example (), where (a) = (). Quantifier subjects occur more frequently in discontiguous verbal clusters (see §...). () a. Şi aşa fu a se tot¸i mântui and so be... . .. all save. ‘and this way they all found salvation’ (CV.–:r) b. aştepta ca să se tot¸i strângă wait... that ˘. .. all gather.. ‘He waited for them all (= the Apostles) to gather’ (CC2.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

Rarely, more than one constituent may break the Cl – V cluster, as happens in () (and also in (a), (b), and (b)). () se nu se cumva fără socotint¸ă ˘. not .. somehow without judgement meastece fără leage mix.up.. without judgement ‘they should not interfere without judgement’ (Prav.:v)

... Higher functional space It is important to stress that, unlike in old Spanish, Galician, and dialectal European Portuguese, in the OR corpus surveyed, negation is never interpolated; rather the locus of interpolation is the right-hand side of the clausal negator nu (‘not’) (). () a. că nu se dereptŭ altă vină that not .. from another blame născu urâciunea be.born... hatred. ‘because hatred was not born (= did not appear) from another blame’ (CC2.:) cumva b. cum cetind să nu te while read. ˘. not .. somehow săblăzneşti tempt.. ‘while reading you should not somehow drive yourself into temptation’ (PO.:) Furthermore, the interpolation-containing sequence occurs to the right of the subjunctive complementizer să (). Note that the Fin0 subjunctive complementizer să may co-occur with higher C0 elements such as ca (‘that’) in (b) (see §.... for evidence that să unambiguously lexicalizes Fin0 in OR). ne () a. să postim derept cum să ˘. fast.. for that ˘. .. pre noi smerim  us. become.humble.. ‘we should fast so that we become humble’ (CC1.:r-v) b. (înt¸ălepciune . . . ) ca să-t¸ dirept wisdom that ˘.=.. rightly croiască căile tale direct.. paths. yours ‘(wisdom) so that it rightly directs your paths’ (DPar.:II.v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Interpolation: Romance and old Romanian



The interpolation-containing sequence may also be preceded by other constituents, both in main clauses, as in (a), and in embedded clauses, as in (b). This indicates that a left-peripheral space is available in clauses with interpolation. () a. Derept-aceasta me iudeii prinseră for-this .. Jews. catch... întru sfintitoare in sanctuary ‘For this the Jew had caught me in the sanctuary’ (CV.–:r) b. ceia ce tu te cu nuşii those whom you.. .. with them. foarte iubiiai strongly love... ‘those whom you strongly loved’ (CTd.–:v)

... A formal account of the observed distribution Taking stock of the properties reviewed in the previous sections, I am in a position to formulate a formal syntactic account of the interpolation-containing sequences. Despite the low frequency of interpolation, the attested data allow me to formulate a coherent analysis of this phenomenon. Solutions will be provided for the following issues: (i) the position of the clitic pronouns involved in interpolation; (ii) the locus of the verb along the clausal spine; (iii) the position of the interpolated constituent(s). (i) Position of clitics. Proclitic pronouns retain their IP-oriented cliticization locus even under interpolation. Thus, with respect to OR interpolation, there are several pieces of distributional evidence against an analysis that derives interpolation from the CP-orientation of pronominal clitics, such as that proposed by Rivero () or Poole () for old Spanish interpolation. To begin with, recall from the previous chapter (§....) that there is evidence supporting the hypothesis that the clausal negator nu (‘not’) does not undergo movement to C (i.e. to Foc), but rather preserves its position on the border between the CP-domain and the IP-domain. The fact that the clausal negator nu (‘not’) is not interpolated (i.e. the string Cl – Neg – V is not attested), but rather that interpolation occurs to the right of the clausal negator (see ()) represents a strong piece of evidence against the CP-orientation of pronominal clitics under interpolation. This line of analysis is also supported by the (frequent, cf. Densusianu , II:) occurrence of interpolation with the subjunctive. Recall from §.... that the subjunctive particle să unambiguously lexicalizes the Fin0-head. The fact that interpolation is found to the right of the subjunctive particle să (e.g. in (), (b), (a), (b), (), ()) even in structures in which să is accompanied by higher complementizers (see (b)) is a direct piece of distributional evidence in favour of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

IP-oriented analysis of pronominal clitics in structures with interpolation. Finally, the presence of constituents to the left of pronominal clitics () indicates that a left peripheral domain is available in clauses with interpolation. Additionally, as remarked in §..., linearizations of the type Cl – XP – Aux (– V) are completely absent from the OR data set.4 The absence of these structures, which can be derived only through the movement of the pronominal clitic to the C-domain, represents an important piece of negative evidence in favour of the IP-oriented analysis of pronominal clitics. (ii) Locus of the verb along the clausal spine. The data investigated indicate that OR interpolation is best analysed along the lines of Ledgeway and Lombardi’s () analysis of Italo-Romance interpolation, namely by assuming that the verb occupies a lower position on the clausal spine. Adopting a line of reasoning according to which the IP-domain consists of several hierarchically organized syntactic fields (see §§..; ..), there are several indications that, in contrast to MR, the synthetic lexical verb found in interpolation structures does not reach the highest functional IP-field, the Mood-field. To begin with, it is important to observe that among the interpolated constituents we find DP-subjects (examples (), ()–()) and floating quantifier subjects (example ()). While DP-subjects may occupy both an A- and an A’-position, bare quantifiers are known to occupy an A-position (Cinque b), unless contrastively focused (Alboiu and Hill ). Whatever this argumental subject position is, the lexical verb occurs lower than it. Second, the verb may be preceded by interpolated Cinquean adverbs like pururea (‘always’) in (a) and iară (‘again’) in (b), which have been analysed as merging in the lower pre-VP area and hence as being a diagnostic for an Asp-projection (Aspperfect and, respectively, Asprepetitive). These two distributional diagnostics support the hypothesis that the verb occupies a lower position on the clausal spine. Further support comes from a property that OR interpolation shares with old Spanish (Rivero ; Poole ) and old Portuguese (Martins ) interpolation, namely that it occurs overwhelmingly in embedded clauses (Nicolae c). It has been repeatedly stressed in the literature (e.g. Martins ; Ledgeway , ; Ledgeway and Lombardi ) that the verb moves higher in main clauses; and, from a Latin-to-Romance perspective, it is to be expected that lower verb movement characterizes especially embedded clauses. It has been established that the transitional old Romance V grammar characterizes especially main clauses, and its origin has been traced to the doubly triggered (syntax- and discourse-driven) V-fronting constructions of late Latin (Salvi ; Ledgeway ; see also the discussion in the 4

This linearization is attested in old Spanish, which has C-oriented cliticization (Rivero ):

(i) e dixe que lo yo avía muerto and said. that him I had killed ‘and I said that I had killed him’ (old Spanish; Poole :)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Interpolation: Romance and old Romanian



previous chapter, §..). By contrast, late Latin and early Romance embedded clauses, where V-to-C movement is strongly disfavoured, are characterized by a conservative subject–object–verb (SOV) grammar with low(er) verb movement. Thus it is to be expected that phenomena that rely on low(er) verb movement should occur especially in embedded clauses. The overwhelming occurrence of (OR) interpolation in embedded clauses is therefore not coincidental; it actually reflects the low(er) V-raising option specific to embedded clauses. Nevertheless, while it is clear that in structures with interpolation the lexical verb does not reach the highest layer of the IP-field, the data on record are not sufficient to enable one to identify perfectly the exact position to which this verb raises. It may raise as high as the Aspect-field of the IP-domain, or it can even undergo less raising, that is, raising internal to the vP-domain. Most plausibly, the verb may target either landing site, and actually have a variable position along the clausal spine in OR in structures with interpolation. Raising to either landing site is compatible with the hypothesis that V-to-I raising in embedded clauses is the result of a gradual process of V-raising to the left, along the clausal spine. The final step of this process with synthetic forms is raising to the highest field in the IPdomain, namely the Mood-field, but its intermediary steps (V-to-Asp, V-to-v) are reflected by phenomena such as interpolation and, as will be seen in the next section, discontiguous verbal clusters. Discontiguous verbal clusters, which have a higher frequency than interpolation, will enable me to sharpen and strengthen this conclusion. (iii) Position of interpolated constituent(s). In example (), the interpolated constituent is a differentially marked direct object, which has a contrastive focus reading: the interpolated direct object pre niminea ‘nobody’ is set in opposition with numai păcatele lui ‘only his sins’; note also that the subject elŭ ‘he’ is postverbal. () şi nu-şŭ pre niminea prepunea elŭ, and not=...  nobody suspect... he numai pre păcatele lui only  sins. his ‘he was not suspecting anyone, but only his sins’ (CC2.:) It is therefore obvious that the interpolated direct object occupies a specifier position in the clause-internal vP-periphery (Belletti’s  ‘low IP-area’). However, in light of the hypothesis that the lexical verb may also raise to a low position in the IP-domain and under a looser definition of scrambling, e.g. as ‘the clause-internal movement of phrases apparently without particular pragmatic function’ (Salvi :), it is also plausible that interpolated constituents scramble to the IP-domain, especially since in many of the examples analysed in §... such constituents do not have a clear-cut pragmatically marked reading. What is more, recall that adverbials such as pururea ‘always’ in (a) and iară ‘again’ in (b) are part of the range of interpolated

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

constituents; given the nature of these adverbials, this distribution directly confirms the existence of an interpolation site in the IP-domain. If the analysis of the strategy of V-raising put forward in the previous chapter is correct – in other words, if V-raising proceeds through specifier positions (§..) – then the fact that the verb occupies a lower position on the clausal spine under interpolation allows specifiers of the IP-field to be available as landing sites for scrambled constituents. In sum, the variable position occupied by the lexical verb under interpolation that has been argued for here is also compatible with the possibility of having multiple landing sites for interpolated constituents, e.g. the vP-periphery (as in Poletto’s  analysis of old Italian) or specifiers in the IP-domain (as in Martins’  analysis of old Portuguese).

..  (i) The syntactic behaviour of OR interpolation-containing structures indicates that interpolation is best analysed as involving a lower height for V-raising in conjunction with an IP-edge cliticization site; these two features ensure that there are intermediary positions (either IP-specifiers or the vP-periphery) that accommodate the constituents that break the expected adjacency between the pronominal clitic and the lexical verb. (ii) Traditional scholarship – Densusianu (, II:) in particular – has pointed out that interpolation occurs more frequently with the (present) subjunctive. Although more empirical research is needed at this point, a tentative conclusion may be drawn: before V-to-I raising of synthetic verbs becomes crossparadigmatically high (i.e. V-to-Mood) in the passage to MR, there are differences between various TAM forms with respect to the height of verb raising; thus interpolation shows that V-to-Mood raising became widespread with the subjunctive later than it did with other moods of the verb. OR is not exceptional in this respect: it resembles languages such as Italian, which shows variation in the height of V-movement depending on the TAM specification of the verb (cf. Cinque ; Ledgeway and Lombardi ).5 (iii) Although many traditional sources take OR interpolation to be due to a foreign model, Old Church Slavonic for the most part, there are arguments against 5 There is, however, an important difference between Romanian and (southern) Italian varieties: in the latter, low V-movement in root clauses and embedded realis clauses is overridden in irrealis/subjunctive clauses, which have otherwise exceptionally high V-movement (Ledgeway ; Ledgeway and Lombardi ). This behaviour leads one to expect that high V-movement occurs first with verbs in the subjunctive. The fact that high V-movement generalizes slower with the Romanian subjunctive most probably derives from the division of labour in the marking of the subjunctive in Romanian: subjunctive marking is ensured on the one hand by the inflected verb itself and on the other by the Fin0 particle să. The valuation of subjunctive features is shared between the CP-domain (the locus of the particle să) and the IP-domain (via V-raising); hence TAM valuation is not ensured solely by V-raising, a fact that accounts for the inertia of Romanian subjunctive with respect to moving higher on the clausal spine.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



this hypothesis. Recall from the previous chapter (§...) that the Slavonic reflexive sę is always enclitic (Olteanu :); by contrast, under interpolation, its OR correspondent se is always proclitic (cf. (), (), (), (), (), (b), (a), (e), (b), (c), (), (), (a)). Furthermore, Migdalski () has shown that Old Church Slavonic pronominal clitics are not second-position elements that could in principle give rise to interpolated structures; rather, in Old Church Slavonic, the second position is reserved for operator clitics, namely the question or focus particle li, the complementizer clitic bo, the focus or interrogative particle ze, and ethical datives. In this light, interpolation appears to be an early Romance phenomenon, residually preserved especially in the first phase of OR.

. DISCONTIGUOUS VERBAL CLUSTERS This section is devoted to the in-depth analysis of discontiguous verbal clusters; a discontiguous verbal cluster involves two non-adjacent verbal elements: single or multiple auxiliary verbs and the lexical verb (a non-finite formative of compound tenses). In order to distinguish terminologically between interpolation and discontiguous verbal clusters, I will employ the label ‘interposed constituent’ for the phrasal elements that break the expected contiguity between auxiliaries and lexical verbs. The first part of the next section offers an empirical overview of the phenomenon: it examines the distribution of discontiguous verbal clusters in OR and establishes some Romance correspondences. In the second part I review the properties of discontiguous verbal clusters and put forward a formal analysis of this phenomenon.

..    ... Old Romanian distribution and Romance counterparts Discontiguous verbal clusters are attested throughout the entire OR period: since the earliest Romanian non-translated writings (example (a)) and translations (example (b)) of the th century, all throughout the th century (example ()), up to the latest texts of the th century (example ()). Multiple constituents may intervene between the auxiliary and the lexical verb (see (); also §...). () a. au ei lăsat cu al .. they leave. with .. ‘they left it with their own word’ (DÎ.:XXX)

lor cuvânt their word

b. Nu te vor mort¸ii lăuda not .. .. dead. praise. ‘The dead will not praise you’ (PH.–:r)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

() a. Sau cine vă va pre voi or who .. ..  you.. mântui de la mene? save. from me. ‘Or who will save you from me?’ (MI.~:r) b. de va neştine lua toiag sau băt¸ if .. someone take. staff or stick ‘if some will take a staff or a stick’ (DPar.:II.v) () a. te vei foarte căi .. .. very repent. ‘you will deeply repent’ (Sind.:v) b. această breaslă s-au foarte micşoratu this guild ..=.. very diminish. ‘this guild has greatly diminished’ (GCond.:v) c. de s-au de sârgu lăt¸it so.that ..=.. quickly expand. ‘so that it (=Moldova) quickly expanded’ (ULM.~:A-f.v) d. cum arŭ fi ei, as.if .. be. they să vie leşii ˘. come.. Poles. ‘as if poor them advised the Poles to (NL.~‑:–)

săracii, sfătuit poor. advised cu oaste la Hotin with army to Hotin come with an army to Hotin’

The quantitative study of the morphosyntax of compound tenses undertaken by Dragomirescu (, b)6 (see also Moldovanu –, Ghet¸ie and Zgraon , and Zamfir ) reveals the following features (note also that Dragomirescu works with a broader concept of compound tenses, an issue that will be addressed in §....) (i) Of the three possible linearizations of auxiliaries and lexical verbs, namely Aux – V, V – Aux (inversion, see chapter ), and Aux – XP* – V (discontiguous verbal clusters), the third is the least frequent one. (ii) However, in contrast to interpolation, discontiguous verbal clusters are not statistically inconsequential: they appear with a frequency that ranges between  per cent in a text like CM. (. per cent with the compound past, . per cent with the voi-future) to . per cent in CV.– or complete absence in CL.. 6 I would like to express my gratitude to Adina Dragomirescu for giving me access to the metadata on which her statistical analysis (Dragomirescu , b) is based. The figures reported in this section and in Table . are partly based on these metadata.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



(iii) The peak of productivity in discontiguous verbal clusters is the th century; such clusters gradually fall into disuse in the th century and are rare in the th. In most situations, degree adverbs of the foarte (‘very’) type may break the auxiliary–lexical verb cluster (see examples (a)–(b)) in the th century. The phenomenon was analysed from a formal perspective by Dragomirescu (b), Nicolae (c), and Alboiu and Hill (). These analyses are not fully consistent, hence the syntactic analysis of discontiguous verbal clusters will be revisited in the present work. Non-adjacency between the auxiliary verb and the lexical verb is attested in various older and modern Romance languages: old French (), old Italian (), old Spanish (), old Galician–Portuguese (), and Istro-Romanian (): () Ai le jou bien fait? .. ... I well make. ‘Did I make it well’ (old French; Roberts :) () quali denari avea Baldovino lasciati loro which coins .. Baldovino leave. to.them ‘which money had Baldovino left them’ (old Italian; Poletto :) () porque ella non avia las cartas resçebidas because she not had. the letters.. received.. ‘because she had not received the letters’ (old Spanish; Mensching :) () en preſẽza deſtaſ teſtemoiaſ que ſom en eſta carta in presence of.these witnesses.f who are. in this document ſcritaſ τ pera aqueſto ſpecialmente chamadaſ written.. and for this specially called.. ‘in the presence of these witnesses, which are mentioned in this letter and were specially summoned for this purpose’ (Galician-Portuguese; Mensching :) () che n-ŭai mire scutat because not=.. me. listen. ‘because you did not listen to me’ (Istro-Romanian; Dragomirescu and Nicolae :) Just as in the case of interpolation (§..), there are multiple syntactic processes (e.g. Aux-to-C movement, IP-scrambling, scrambling in vP, short-distance scrambling, a lower position targeted by the lexical verb; cf. Martins ; Mensching ; Poletto ) that have been argued to derive the non-adjacency between the auxiliary verb and the lexical verb in the Romance languages.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

... A methodological issue in the analysis of discontiguous verbal clusters Before turning to the analysis, I must make a methodological remark. In contrast to previous studies, most importantly Dragomirescu (, b), I have adopted a more restricted understanding of analytic verb forms. Dragomirescu (, b) has a broader interpretation, as she includes in her analysis periphrastic formations such as example (), made up of the will-auxiliary plus the subjunctive. However, clitic climbing does not take place in periphrases of this type; and this syntactic diagnostic indicates that such periphrases are not proper auxiliary–verb constructions, but rather periphrastic constructions that are still subject to a biclausal analysis. By contrast, I employ here a more restricted definition of analytic verb forms and take into consideration only formations where clitic climbing is obligatorily; example (), an analytical conditional built with the auxiliary want, is such a formation. In short, the notion of ‘discontiguous verbal cluster’ characterizes only formations such as (), which make up a cluster in the general case (see §... for a review of the analytic formations considered in the analysis). () Că înde me-au vrut dracul ponoslui that while ..=.. want. devil. slander. ‘that when the Devil would have slandered me’ (PH.–:v) () că mai bine va el să-şi that more well .. he ˘.=... lase puii să moară de foame leave.. cubs. ˘. die.. of hunger ‘that he would better leave his cubs to die of hunger’ (FD.–:r)

..         ... Morphological properties Discontiguous linearizations affect most of the analytic tenses of OR. Recall from §.... that OR has two sets of auxiliary verbs: a set of constructions with auxiliary verbs lexicalizing a Mood0-head, which have been preserved in the passage to MR, and a set of constructions with a richer auxiliary structure – one that involves either an auxiliary inflecting for both mood and tense, or a double compound form – which have disappeared in the transition from OR to MR. The set of auxiliary-verb constructions preserved in the passage from OR to MR (which were more frequent than the auxiliaries in the disappeared set) are more commonly found in discontiguous linearizations. This set comprises the indicative

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



compound past (example ()); the indicative future (example (a)) and, very rarely, the future perfect (example (b)) and the gerundial future (example (c)); the conditional present (example (a)) and, very rarely, the past (example (b)) and the gerundial (example (c)) forms of the conditional; and, very rarely, the perfect (example (a)) and gerundial (example (b)) subjunctive (both forms incompletely grammaticalized in OR, especially in the first phase, Zafiu :). () când au ei viiat when .. they live. ‘when they lived’ (PO.:) () a. va şi alalte tipări şi scoate .. also the.other print. and deliver. ‘he will print also the other ones and publish them’ (PO.:) b. cându va fi unchiul mainte luoat nepoata when .. be. uncle. before take. niece. ‘when the uncle will have first married his niece’ (Prav.:r) avându vro fată c. De va neştine fi if .. someone be. have. a girl ‘if someone had a girl (with a former wife)’ (Prav.:r) () a. se-ară Domnul vrea if=.. God want. ‘if God wanted’ (CV.–:v) lăsat b. De n-ară fi Domnul Savaot if not=.. be. Lord. Sabaoth leave. noao sământ¸ă us. seed. ‘If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us offspring’ (CPr.:) c. când ară fi Iosif sosind when .. be. Joseph. arrive. ‘when Joseph would be arriving’ (PO.:) () a. face prepus ( . . . ) cum să fie el furat makes supposition that ˘. be.. he steal. ‘He makes suppositions about how he would have stolen’ (Prav.:; Pană Dindelegan ) b. să deaie poruncă afară cum să fi ˘. give.. order outside that ˘. be. cineva cerând ceva someone ask. something ‘let him order for someone asking for something’ (DVT.–:r; Pană Dindelegan )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

Discontiguous linearizations are also attested with auxiliary-verb constructions that have become extinct in the passage from OR to MR; witness the double compound perfect in (), the periphrastic pluperfect formed with the imperfect of be in (), and the conditional based on the compound past of the verb want in (). () că au fost Hristos spus that .. be. Christ tell. ‘that Christ had told them’ (CC1.:r)

lor them.

() derep ce postul era amu venritu for what fast. be.. now come. ‘because the fast had already arrived’ (CV.–:r) () Înde a vrutu oamenrii miei while .. want. people. my ‘while my people listened to me’ (PH.–:v)

asculta listen.

menre me.

Finally, recall from the previous section (§...) that auxiliary verbs always cluster with pronominal clitics (when present), and thus structures of the type Cl – XP – Aux (– V) are not attested. The linearization Aux – Cl (– XP/S – V) is not attested either, an issue to which I return in §....

... Status of auxiliary verbs Traditional scholars (e.g. Moldovanu –:; Frâncu :) have attributed the existence of discontiguous linearizations of the sort investigated here to a ‘relative independence of auxiliary verbs’ (Moldovanu –:); formal grammarians reinterpreted this intuition by attributing a non-clitic status to the auxiliary verbs that occur in discontiguous linearizations; such a property supposedly enables these verbs to undergo V(Aux)-to-C movement (Alboiu and Hill ). Upon reviewing all the relevant properties of discontiguous verbal clusters, I will bring arguments against an Aux-to-C movement analysis of these linearizations (§...). In this section I briefly discuss the hypothesis that a subset of OR auxiliaries might have a ‘nonclitic’ nature. To begin with, the corpus I have surveyed and the histories of the Romanian language I have consulted do not provide evidence for a difference in internal structure between auxiliaries in discontiguous verbal clusters and auxiliaries in contiguous verbal clusters (nor can any difference be identified in their spelling). Presumably, prior to attaining clitic status, the grammaticalizing verbs went through a non-clitic stage, as predicted by the grammaticalization cline, but evidence for this stage is not provided by the earliest surviving samples of Romanian. The only empirical material that might be taken to support the non-clitic hypothesis is the existence of auxiliary-licensed ellipsis, illustrated by the examples in ()–().

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



() a. de să va cunoaşte carii if .. .. know. who l-au rănit şi carii nu ...=.. hurt. and who not l-au √ ...=.. ‘if it will be known who hurt him and who did not’ (Prav.:) b. cine l-au rănit şi who ...=.. hurt. and l-au√ ...=.. ‘who hurt him and who did not’ (Prav.:)

cine who

nu not

() a. De voiu face aceasta de voe, plată am; if .. do. this by will pay have... iară să voiu √, fără de voe, vistiernicie but if .. without by will treasury mi-e dată ..=be... give. ‘If I will do this willingly, I will be paid; but if I will (do it) unwillingly, I will be given the treasury (department)’ (NT.:r) b. de-l va fi mutat sau de if=.. .. be. move. or if nu-l va fi√ not=... .. be. ‘whether he will have moved it (=the border) or will have not’ (Prav.:) c. de va fi greşit cu înşelăciune if .. be. err. with fraud sau de nu va fi√ or if not .. be. ‘if he will have deceitfully committed a mistake or not’ (Prav.:) However, these examples should be taken with a grain of salt, for several empirical and analytic reasons. Empirically speaking, they are the only examples of Aux-licensed ellipsis identified in OR (they have been identified by Zamfir :,  and Carabulea :); they are all from the mid-th century and four of them – (a), (b), (b), (c) – come from the same source text, Prav.. Thus Aux-licensed ellipsis is not a representative phenomenon at all, but rather an isolated occurrence. Second, notice that with the exception of (a), where the auxiliary verb is the sole licensor of ellipsis, all the examples are cases of co‑licensing: in (), the compound perfect auxiliary is accompanied by the clausal negator nu (‘not’), while in (b) and (c), along with the clausal negator, there is a double-auxiliary structure made up of the future auxiliary and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

the irrealis auxiliary fi (‘be’). Co-licensing actually appears to compensate for the clitic nature of a single auxiliary (the perfective auxiliary and the future auxiliary). For these reasons, these isolated examples cannot be taken as strong evidence for a non-clitic status of auxiliaries. On the other hand, the existence of Aux-licensed ellipsis does testify to the residual existence of low verb movement of the lexical verb: Aux-licensed ellipsis is specific to English-type languages, in the analysis of which the possibility to delete the lexical verb in analytic structures has been related to low(er) verb movement of the lexical verb along the clausal spine (Thoms , with references). To conclude, the evidence that supports the thesis of a non-clitic status of the auxiliaries involved in discontiguous linearizations is not compelling; rather the evidence reviewed in this section provides a subtle indication for the residual existence of low verb movement in the grammar of OR.

... Range of interposed constituents There are many types of constituents that may intervene between the auxiliary and the lexical verb, producing discontiguous verbal clusters. To begin with, pronominal and nominal DP subjects may be interposed; see examples () and () respectively: () ce-au el făgăduit what=.. he promise. ‘what he promised’ (FT.–:r) () a. cum au şi Hristos iubit sfânta as .. also Christ love. holy. ‘as Christ also loved the holy church’ (CM.:r)

besearecă church

b. se-au măria lui sculat den moarte ..=.. highness. his rise. from death ‘His Highness rose from the dead’ (CM.:r) Direct objects, as in (), and indirect objects, as in (), may occur between the auxiliary and the lexical verb; (b) is particularly interesting because the differentially marked direct object is accompanied by an apposition, giving rise to a quite heavy interposed constituent. () a. că ne va pre noi that .. ..  us. ‘that he will listen to us’ (CCat.:v-r)

asculta listen.

b. nemică nu iaste minune să vorŭ nothing not be... wonder if .. şi pre voi, ucenicii şi robii, urî also  you.. apprentices. and servants. hate. ‘it’s no wonder if they will also hate you, the apprentices and servants’ (CC2.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



() Că-i veri lui da blagoslovenie that=.. .. him. give. blessing ‘that you will give him your blessing’ (PH.–:r) Interposed adverbials are well represented. First, we find diagnostic adverbs for V-movement from the low adverb space like bine ‘well’ in () and from the high adverb space like amu ‘now’ (which lexicalizes a T-related specifier) in (), as well as adverbial expressions such as acumuşi, and de sârg ‘quicky’ in (), which are ambiguous between an Asp-event reading and Asp-process reading, placed in different positions in Cinque’s hierarchy (the high adverb space and the low adverb space, respectively). () şi va bine orândi lucrurile tale and .. well organize. things. your ‘and he will organize your things well’ (DVT.–:v) () a. de vămŭ amu pune ştiint¸ele noastre if .. now put. knowledge.. our înaintea lu Dumnezeu before  God ‘if we will now put our knowledge before God’ (CC2.:–) b. De veri amu vărsa lacrămi pre fat¸a if .. now shed. tears on face. 2 ‘if you will now shed tears on your face’ (CC .:)

ta your

() a. că vei acmuşu muri that .. quicky die. ‘that you will quickly die’ (FT.–:v) b. de s-au de sârgu lăt¸it so.that ..=.. quickly expand. ‘so that it (=Moldova) quickly expanded’ (ULM.~:A-f.v) Second, circumstantial adverbs – of place (example ()) and of manner (example ()) – may be interposed between the auxiliary and the lexical verb. Given their syntax, these adverbs have a VP-internal source (Cinque :–), hence their position in the discontiguous verbal cluster is reached via movement (scrambling). () tu însut¸i eşti aicea you.. yourself be... here ‘you yourself had come here’ (PO.:)

venit come.

() şi văm aşa îmbla ca şi aceaste cinci feate and .. so walk. like these five girls 1 r ‘and we will walk like this, like these five girls’ (CC .: )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

Finally, degree (example ()) and focus (example ()) adverbs, which tend to be lighter, may also be interposed: () a. aşa se-au tare puternicit foametea so ..=.. strongly intensify. hunger. în pământul Canaanului in land. Canaan.. ‘so strongly did hunger intensify in the land of Canaan’ (PO.:) b. le-au foarte păzit la inima lui ...=.. very guard. at heart. his ‘he tightly guarded them in his heart’ (Sind.:r) () nu l-at¸ numai auzit not ...=.. only hear. ci l-at¸ şi văzut but ...=.. also see. ‘you did not only hear him, but also saw him’ (Ev.:) PPs may also break the auxiliary–lexical verb cluster: () de ce-ai în ei arătat of what=.. in them. show. ‘of what You have shown in them’ (CM.:v) Predicates may also be interposed in the verbal cluster: () a. prorocul tutorora au scris lăsat că prophet. everybody. .. written leave. that ‘the prophet left it written for everybody that’ (FT.–:r) b. Fiiule, de te vei înt¸ălept face, son.. if .. .. wise become. ¸tie înt¸ălept vei fi şi deaproapelor tăi, you. wise .. be. also fellowmen.. your iar de te vei rău aleage, sângur and if .. .. bad choose. yourself ît¸ vei pocerni realele. you.. .. produce. bad.things. ‘Son, if you should become wise, you will be wise for yourself and for your fellowmen, but if you should choose to become bad, you yourself will bring bad things unto yourself ’ (DPar.:II:v) Floating quantifiers as in () and bare quantifiers as in () may be interposed; with reference to floating quantifiers, one should note that interposition is attested both

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



with single-auxiliary forms, as in (a) or (c), and with multiple auxiliary forms, as in (b); the floating quantifier may also be focused, as in (c). () a. din a cui sfint¸ie ne vrom from .. whose holiness .. .. tot¸i sfint¸i all hallow. ‘from whose holiness we will all be hallowed’ (CM.:r) b. şi cându are fi tot¸i mâncându and when .. be. all eat. din mâncările păgânilor of food.. pagans.. ‘and when they would all be eating from the pagans’ food’ (DVT.–:v-r) c. De s-ar şi tot¸i sminti, iară eu nu if ..=.. even all go.mad. and I not ‘even if all would go off their heads, I would not’ (BB.:) ()

Iarră de va neştine botedza and if .. someone baptize. ‘and if someone baptized a girl’ (Prav.:r)

vro a

fată girl

Very rarely, coordinating conjunctions (which are clause- or sentence-external) may be trapped in the verbal cluster (see example ()); the same phenomenon has been identified in, and discussed with reference to, the nominal domain (§..). () de să vor, dară, face case multe if .. .. but make. houses a.lot ‘but should they have built a lot of houses’ (DPar.:II:r) Although not very frequently, the interposition of multiple constituents in the verbal cluster is consistently attested in the corpus (see e.g. ()). () a. varvarii [ . . . ] nu era necedinioară pre Pavel văzut barbars. not be.. never  Paul see. ‘the barbarians had never seen Paul’ (CC1.:v) b. cum au Cristus noauă as .. Christ us. ‘as Christ has told us’ (FT.–:v)

dzis tell.

c. Era unii den cărtulari aciia şezândŭ be.. some of scholars here sit. ‘some of the scholars were sitting here’ (CC2.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

... The matrix–embedded asymmetry Despite their low frequency, discontiguous verbal clusters are constantly attested in OR texts (§...), a fact that allows us to make some quantitative observations on their distribution as well. Discontiguous verbal clusters are attested both in matrix clauses (e.g. ()) and in embedded clauses (e.g. ()) with different frequencies. () Pren credint¸ă şi pre aşteptarea acestui lucru, eu încă through faith and by waiting. this. thing I also am pre el botezat ..  him. baptize. ‘Through faith and by waiting for this, I also baptized him’ (CM.:r) mainte lua nepoata () iară când va unchiul and when .. uncle. before take. niece. ‘and when the uncle will have first married his niece’ (Prav.:v) Observe the matrix–embedded asymmetry displayed in an example such as (): in the matrix clause there is V-to-C movement, diagnosed by inversion (chapter ), while the embedded clause features a discontiguous verbal cluster. () se-ară Domnul vrea şi se viseremu, if=.. God want. and if live... face-vremu ceasta sau ceaea do.=.. this or that ‘if God wants and if we live, we will do this or that’ (CV.–:v) It is also important to mention that matrix-discontiguous verbal clusters frequently occur in negative clauses: () A nu va Dumnedzeu cere  not .. God ask.for. ‘Will God not ask for these?’ (PH.–:v)

aceastea? these

Table . summarizes the matrix–embedded asymmetry of discontiguous verbal clusters. The metadata7 on which the table is based only partly correspond to Dragomirescu’s (, b) metadata. However, as explained in section §..., some of the periphrastic formations taken into account in Dragomirescu (, b) have been excluded (hence the difference between the figures in Table . and those in Dragomirescu , b). Some of the texts, especially post-thcentury ones, have been examined for the first time here. Dragomirescu (, b) analysed only the general distribution of the three possible linearizations of auxiliaries and lexical verbs: Aux – V; V – Aux (inversion); and Aux – XP* – V (discontiguous verbal clusters). 7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



TABLE . The matrix–embedded asymmetry of discontiguous verbal clusters Text DÎ(1521–1600)

Discontiguous verbal clusters Matrix clause 0 (0%)

PH.1500–10

2 (13.33%)

CCat.1560

0 (0%)

Total

Embedded clause 4 (100%)

4 (100%)

13 (86.66%)

15 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

CPrav.1560–2

0 (0%)

CV.1563–83 CM.1567

0 (0%) 2 (16.67%)

FT.1571–5

1 (12.5%)

7 (87.5%)

8 (100%)

Prav.1581

2 (15.38%)

11 (84.62%)

13 (100%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

5 (100 %) 10 (83.33%)

5 (100%) 12 (100%)

PO.1582

5 (16.13%)

26 (83.87%)

31 (100%)

FD.1592–604

0 (0%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

MI.~1630

0 (0%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

DPar.1683 (50 p.) Sind.17038

4 (50%)

4 (50%)

8 (100%)

4 (100%)

0 (0%)

4 (100%)

NL.~1750–66 (100 p.) Global

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

2 (100%)

21 (19.44%)

87 (80.55%)

108 (100%)

The following observations may be drawn on the basis of Table .: (i) The global figures indicate that discontiguous verbal clusters are four times more frequent in embedded clauses that in matrix clauses. (ii) Except for an th-century text, Sind. (but see n.  in this chapter for a possible explanation), in neither text is the proportion of matrix discontiguous clusters higher than that of embedded discontiguous clusters; only in DPar. and NL.~– is their distribution equal, while in the other, older texts occurrence in embedded clauses prevails.

Note that in th-century texts the range of interposed constituents is rather narrow. In Sind., only the adverb foarte ‘very’ may break the auxiliary–lexical verb adjacency (i). In MR, foarte is the grammaticalized marker of the absolute superlative and exhibits clitic behaviour (i.e. cannot occur by itself). Thus, in the examples in Sind. (e.g. (i)), it is not clear whether foarte is a full-fledged adverbial (an XP) or exhibits the behaviour a clitic adverbial of the mai-type. In the first  pages of NL.~–, of the two examples identified, one is also with an interposed light intensifying adverbial (ii). 8

(i)

(ii)

la inima le-au foarte păzit ...=.. very guard. at heart. ‘he guarded them well at his heart’ (Sind.:r) Deci Ştefănit¸ă-vodă [ . . . ] s-au prea so Ştefănit¸ă-voivode ..=.. very ‘So Voivode Ştefănit¸ă became very infuriated’ (NL.~–:)

lui his mâniet infuriate.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

(iii) The four discontiguous verbal clusters attested in the collection of th-century texts written directly in Romanian (= DÎ) occur in embedded clauses. (iv) The distribution of discontiguous verbal clusters in affirmative versus negative matrix clauses, not depicted in Table ., is also revealing: of the  discontiguous clusters attested in matrix clauses,  occur in affirmative clauses and  occur in negative clauses; however, with strict reference to matrix clauses, if we exclude the  examples from Sind. and the one NL.~– where the nature of the interposed constituent is unclear (see n. ), then there is an equal share of  to  discontiguous verbal clusters in affirmative and negative clauses. The facts investigated here represent the first argument in favour of the formal analysis put forward below, namely that discontiguous structures may be best understood as involving a lower height for the movement of the lexical verb along the clausal spine, i.e. lower verb movement, as in the case of interpolation (§...). Overwhelming presence in contexts in which V-to-C movement is either strongly disfavoured (embedded clauses) or straightforwardly blocked (negative clauses) points to the fact that, while auxiliaries preserve their base (IP) position, lexical verbs have the option of undergoing less movement along the clausal spine, either to a lower IP-position or to a higher position in the vP-field.

... A formal account of discontiguous verbal clusters The properties discussed so far enable me to put forward a formal analysis of the discontiguous verbal clusters attested in OR. A cursory review of the range of interpolated constituents (§...) indicates that what I have discussed under the description ‘discontiguous verbal clusters’ actually brings under one roof two distinct word order patterns: the pattern Aux – (scrambled) argument/adjunct XP – V, progressively lost across Romance, and the pattern Aux – AdvP – V, still found in Romance (e.g. Fr. Il est probablement venu ‘He probably came’, Il a bien mangé ‘He ate well’), but not in MR. The fact that these two patterns simultaneously disappeared in the passage from OR to MR is not coincidental, and calls for a uniform account of the phenomenon. Two lines of analysis have been pursued in the literature. One, briefly developed in Nicolae (c:–), capitalizes on the height of the lexical verb along the clausal spine: while auxiliaries occupy a high position in the IP-domain,9 the lexical verb undergoes less movement (either to a lower position in the IP-domain or to a high position in the vP-domain); the lower location of the lexical verb allows for the existence 9 Recall from §... that both sets of auxiliary verbs characteristic of OR may be found in discontiguous verbal clusters. Auxiliaries characterized by a simpler structure merge in a high position in the IP-domain, a Mood0-head, while auxiliaries with a more complex internal structure (those that inflect for both mood and tense) merge in a lower TAM-head and head-move to the highest TAM projection in the IP-domain (Nicolae c; Alboiu and Hill ). Thus auxiliaries end up having a high position in the IP-field, which is confirmed by the fact that pronominal clitics and auxiliaries systematically cluster together; recall from §... that discontiguous linearizations of the form Aux – Cl (– XP/S – V) are not attested in the corpus examined.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



of specifier positions that accommodate constituents generated in the IP-domain (i.e. diagnostic adverbials for V-movement) or scrambled to the IP-domain or to the vP-periphery. A different line of analysis is pursued by Alboiu and Hill (). Attributing a non-clitic status to a set of OR auxiliaries (but see the discussion in §...), Alboiu and Hill derive a subset of discontiguous verbal clusters (those attested in conditional clauses, interrogative clauses, and relative clauses) by assuming that ‘Aux-to-Fin takes place in the presence of clause typing operators, which may result in SAI (= Subject– Auxiliary Inversion)’ (: ), and another subset of discontiguous verbal clusters (those attested in declarative clauses) by assuming low(er) verb movement (V-to-Asp). In what follows I bring evidence that supports the first line of analysis. First, I show that there is textual evidence against the hypothesis that auxiliaries undergo Aux-to-C movement regardless of clause type. Second, I focus on discontiguous verbal clusters in which interposed constituents provide more accurate hierarchical indications for determining the height of the lexical verb. The following arguments support the claim that, regardless of clause type, in discontiguous verbal clusters auxiliary verbs reside in the IP-domain rather than moving to the CP-domain (i.e. Aux-to-Fin in Alboiu and Hill ). First, a grammar with Aux-to-C movement predicts that pronominals are enclitic to the auxiliary; this prediction is indeed borne out in earlier Romance varieties such as old French, old Italian, and old Spanish,10 which have SAI and discontiguous linearizations. By contrast, in OR pronominal clitics systematically precede the auxiliary verb(s) involved in a discontiguous verbal cluster;11 this is specific to declarative main (example (a)) and embedded (example (b)) clauses, to conditional clauses12 (example ()) regardless of the conditional complementizer 10

Witness the following examples:

jou bien fait? (i) a. Ai le .. ... I well make. ‘Did I make it well?’ (old French; Roberts :) tu fatto per provarmi? b. Hailo ..=... you do. to test.=. ‘Did you do this to put me to the test?’ (old Italian; Roberts :) olbidado. c. Ya don Rachel et Vidas avedes-me already lord Rachel and Vidas ..=. forgot. ‘Lord Rachel and Vidas, you have forgotten me already’ (old Spanish; Rivero :) 11 There is only one apparent exception to this rule, namely discontiguous clusters with the accusative singular feminine clitic o as in (i). The exception is only apparent because in (i) the pronominal is enclitic to the lexical verb, not to the auxiliary verb; as shown in §..., the accusative singular feminine clitic o has special linearization properties: when it is enclitic, it is hosted by the low, vP-edge cliticization site, residually active in OR. These linearizations do not therefore contradict the generalization established in the main text.

(i) de vei înt¸ălepciunea striga-o if .. wisdom. shout.=... ‘if you explicitly show your wisdom’ (DPar.: II.r) 12 The examples in () constitute direct evidence against the following claim made by Alboiu and Hill (:, emphasis added) with reference to conditional clauses: ‘Another typical indication for AUX-to-Fin would be the presence of enclitics versus proclitics, on the assumption that clitics occupy a head in TP, and are thus left behind by AUX in C. This is not available in OR, but at the same time, proclitics are absent as well’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

employed (de, dacă, or să ‘if/weather’), to interrogative clauses (example (); rare),13 and to relative clauses (example ()). () a. Şi să vor împlea arile de grâu and .. .. fill. fields. of wheat şi să vor de biu vărsa and .. .. of abundance spill. călcătorile de vin şi de undelemn. barrels. of wine and of oil ‘And the fields of grain will get filled and the barrels of wine and oil will get spilled because of abundance’ (DPar.:I.v) b. Dumnezeu făgăduitu-ne-au că God promise.=..=.. that ne va pre noi asculta. .. ..  us. listen. ‘God promised that he will listen to us’ (CCat.:v-r) () a. De se va omul sui if .. .. man. climb. ‘If man would climb up to heaven’ (FD.–:r) b. deaca se-au măria lui if ..=.. highness. his den moarte from death ‘if His Highness rose from the dead’ (CM.:r)

în in

ceriu heaven

sculat rise.

c. Iară să i-au domnu-său dat lui and if ..=.. God-his give. him. muiare [ . . . ], muiarea şi porobocii ai woman woman. and offspring. .. domnu-său fie God-his be.. ‘And if God gave him a woman [who gave birth to boys or girls], the woman and offspring should be God’s’ (PO.:) () Sau cine vă va pre voi mântui de la mene? or who .. ..  you.. save. from me. ‘Or who will save you from me?’ (MI.~:r)

13 Discontiguous verbal clusters in interrogative clauses have the lowest frequency in the corpus, hence the rare occurrence of pronominal clitics; even if rare, pronominal clitics are always proclitic.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous verbal clusters

() a. Iisus Hristos, ce te-au Tatăl tremis Jesus Christ whom ..=.. father. send. ‘Jesus Christ, whom your Father sent’ (CM.:v) b. Duhului Sfânt, din a cui sfint¸ie Ghost.. holy from .. whose holiness ne vrom tot¸i sfint¸i .. .. all hallow. ‘to the Holy Ghost, from whose holiness we will all be hallowed’ (CM.:r) c. acelui Domnezeu care se-au that. God who ..=.. arătat show. ‘to that God who has shown Himself to you’ (PO.:)

¸tie you.

Second, the position of auxiliaries (and pronominal clitics) with respect to the clausal negator nu (‘not’) is also important. The clausal negator nu is never interposed and systematically precedes discontiguous verbal clusters, even in conditional clauses (see (c)); this indicates that the auxiliaries (and pronominal clitics) reside in the IPdomain, since clausal negation is situated at the left edge of this domain (§....). () a. iară mintea noastră şi firea doară nu and mind. our and nature. even not se-au de toate domiritŭ ..=.. of all.. understand. ‘and our mind and nature did not even fully understand all of them’ (CC2.:) b. au nu v-am eu spus or not ..=.. I tell. v ‘or didn’t I tell you that’ (DVT.–: )

voao you..

că that

vrut Dumnedzeu clădi casa, c. Se nu a if not .. want. God build. house. în deşert trudiră-se dziditorii in vain labour...=.. builders. ‘If God didn’t want to build the house, the builders laboured in vain’ (PH.‑:r) Third, also important is that a left periphery that hosts topicalized or focalized constituents may occur to the left of a discontiguous verbal cluster, as in (): () a. că tare ne-am noi because heavily ..=.. we dumnedzăireei tale Godship.. your ‘we heavily sinned to your Godship’ (CM.:v)

greşit sin.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core b. Ce mai bine va noao spune sfânt Pavel apostol but more well .. us. tell. saint Paul apostle ‘But it would be better if saint apostle Paul will tell us’ (CC1.:r) c. că voi încă at¸i aceasta that you.. already .. this ‘that you have already asked for this’ (PO.:)

cerut require.

Turning now to the height of the lexical verb along the clausal spine, there are several relevant diagnostics that can be applied. First, recall that adverbs that can be used to diagnose V-movement may occur in-between the auxiliary verb and the lexical verb: adverbs from the low adverb space (e.g. () = ()), adverbs from the high adverb space (e.g. (); see also ()), and adverbial expressions ambiguous between an Asp-event reading and an Asp-process reading (e.g. ()). () şi va bine orândi lucrurile tale and .. well organize. things. your ‘and he will organize your things well’ (DVT.–:v) jărtvă, dare-am () se veri amu vrea if .. now want. sacrifice give.=.. ‘If you want a sacrifice now, we will give it’ (PH.–:v) The distribution of these adverbials is an important diagnostic for determining the position of the lexical verb along the clausal spine. Taking into consideration other distributional factors (e.g. the existence of Aux-licensed ellipsis, for which see §..., and the propensity of discontiguous verbal clusters to appearing in contexts where V-to-C movement is strongly disfavoured, i.e. embedded clauses, or entirely blocked, i.e. negative (matrix) clauses), these data indicate that the lexical verb occupies a lower position in the IP-field (it raises to Asp, cf. Alboiu and Hill ) or a high position in the vP-field. This hypothesis is supported by P-ambiguous examples like (), where the interposed constituent is a bare quantifier subject. As is known since Cinque (b) and was stressed by Alboiu and Hill (), bare quantifiers occupy an A-position in narrow syntax. This position may be either the vP-internal subject position or a subject A-position in the IP, which need not necessarily be the highest specifier position in the TAM-fields of the IP-domain, as will be argued below. () a. S-ară cineva greşi if=.. someone err. ‘If someone committed a mistake’ (CC1.:r) b. de va neştine lua o muiare văduo if .. someone take. a woman widow ‘if someone married a widowed woman’ (Prav.:r)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



A sharper account may be formulated upon analysing the data in () against three sets of more complex examples. The first set of examples, ()–(), consists of multiple interposed constituents, one of which is the subject. The data in () contain subjects that are not bare quantifiers; those in () contain a bare quantifier subject. In a sequence of multiple interposed constituents, the subject shows a strong propensity towards being the highest, leftmost one; for the reasons explained above, the non-focused quantificational subjects (see ()) are the most relevant ones, as they point towards an argumental position in the IP. () a. cum au Cristus noauă as .. Christ us. ‘as Christ has told us’ (FT.–:v)

dzis tell.

b. Era unii den cărtulari aciia şezândŭ be.. some of scholars here sit. ‘some of the scholars were sitting here’ (CC2.:) den mort¸i învia () a. nici să ară cineva not.even if .. someone from dead. resurrect. nu vor avea credint¸ă not .. have. faith ‘even if someone resurrected from the dead they would not have faith’ (CC1.:r) b. S-au neştire de întâiul ceas lucratu if=.. someone from first.the hour work. să ia astăzi plată dereaptă ˘. receive.. today pay deserved ‘If someone worked since dawn, he should receive the deserved pay today’ (CSVII.–:v) The second set of examples, (), consists of constructions with multiple auxiliaries and interposed bare quantifier subjects; note that the subject is trapped between the higher and the lower auxiliary. This points once again to an argumental subject position located high in the IP. By contrast, non-quantifier subjects (which may undergo A-bar movement) appear to occupy a lower position (scrambled to a lower specifier in the IP-domain, or moved to the vP-periphery), as shown by the fact that they generally occur between the second auxiliary (irrealis be) and the lexical verb (). () a. De va neştine fi avându vro fată cu if .. someone be. have. a girl with altă muiare other woman ‘if someone had a girl with a different woman’ (Prav.:r)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core b. să fi cineva cerând ceva în  de zile ˘. be. someone ask. something in  of days ‘should someone be asking for something in  days’ (DVT.–:r)

() a. Iar de-ai hi domiata and if=.. be. you... ‘And if you had striven’ (DÎ.:XCIII)

sârguit strive.

b. de va fi omul zăcând spre moarte if .. be. man. rest. towards death ‘if the man was resting waiting for death’ (CPrav.–:v) c. când ară fi Iosif sosind la frat¸ii when .. be. Joseph arrive. at brothers ‘when Joseph would be arriving at his brothers’ (PO.:)

săi his

Finally, the third set of examples involves discontiguous verbal clusters like () and (). In () the interposed constituent is a low adverb, and the subject is postverbal (presumably occupying its merge position). In () the cluster is broken by a high adverb followed by what appears to be a focused subject (presumably occupying a position in the vP-periphery). Both examples indicate that the verb occupies a position in the vP-domain, presumably on the edge of the vP-phase; the nature of the vP-phase will be addressed in §... () până vor mai bine înt¸eleage creştinii until .. more well understand. Christians. ‘until the Christians will better understand’ (CM.:r) sta şi nu vă () De vet¸i amu voi if .. now you.. stay. and not .. vet¸i schimba .. change. ‘and if you now remain (like this) and not change yourself ’ (CC2.:) That the vP-edge is also a potential location of interposed constituents is confirmed by the interposition of genuinely focalized constituents (example ()), and that subjects may occupy their vP-internal merge position is shown by examples such as (), which feature a bare quantifier in postverbal subject position (Alboiu and Hill :). () a. şi cetit¸i şi nu judecaret¸i necetind mainte, că and read.. and not judge.. not.read. before because vet¸i cu adevăr a afla mare vistiiariu sufletesc .. with truth . find. big treasure spiritual ‘and read and not judge without first reading, because you will truly find a great spiritual treasure’ (PO.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



b. Derept aceaia mă tem că văm for that .. fear... that .. şi noi peri rău also we end.up. bad ‘for that I fear that we as well will end up bad’ (CC1.:v) păntru noi () s-ară fi grăit aimintrea cineva if=.. be. speak. otherwise someone for us. ‘if someone would have spoken differently for us’ (DÎ.:XLIV) Taking stock of the arguments presented so far, I am in a position to formulate a more accurate formal analysis of discontiguous verbal clusters. (i) With respect to the position of the components of verbal constituents, the data indicate that a discontiguous verbal cluster is made up of an auxiliary (or, more rarely, two auxiliaries) occupying a high position in the IP-domain (presumably a Mood0-head) and a lexical verb targeting various positions along the clausal spine, i.e. either a low position in the IP-domain or a higher position in the vP-domain. The lower height of the lexical verb accounts for the existence of specifier positions in the IP-domain or on the edge of the vPphase that accommodate interposed constituents. Since discontiguous verbal clusters have a low frequency in the corpus (§...), the exact status (pragmatically neutral or marked) of the subset of interposed constituents that do not occupy a fixed position is difficult to determine (by contrast, bare subject quantifiers occupy an A-position, and it is generally assumed that V-raising diagnostic adverbials do so too); hence a precise cartography of the positions that are on the one hand occupied by interposed constituents and on the other hand targeted by the verb itself is hard to establish with accuracy. P-ambiguity is thus pervasive, an important trigger for linguistic change and parameter resetting. (ii) The bare quantifier data reviewed above have revealed that an IP-argumental subject position14 accommodating bare quantifiers is available in OR. According to Alboiu and Hill (), this position is Spec,TP (with TP (/Agr-TP) as the highest TAM projection in the cited analysis), and the subject is interposed between the auxiliary and the lexical verb as an effect of SAI

14

Word order is not the only factor that supports this hypothesis. Other factors are the existence of several subject doubling patterns no longer available in MR (Alboiu and Hill ; for a review of the patterns, see Pană Dindelegan :–) and occasional subject–verb agreement on the non-passive past participle (example (i)), disallowed in MR (Alboiu and Hill ; for a comprehensive review of participle agreement in OR, see Dragomirescu a). (i) şi încă foarte departe n-ară fi merşi and still very far not=.. be. go... ‘and they wouldn’t still have gone too far’ (PO.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core (i.e. Aux-to-Fin movement), at least in clauses with operators. As has been shown above, the more extensive corpus analysis undertaken here furnishes evidence against an account along the lines of SAI, as the auxiliaries in discontiguous verbal clusters preserve their IP-internal position. I suggest a different line of analysis in order to account for the existence of an argumental subject position in the IP, adopting the analysis put forward by Cornilescu () for the double subject construction of MR. Following Cardinaletti’s () analysis of Italian, Cornilescu () brings evidence in favour of two argumental postverbal subject positions, namely Spec,AgrSP and Spec,vP (=Spec,VP in Cornilescu ), but also shows that AgrSP is not necessarily the highest projection in the IP-domain. If one puts together Cornilescu’s () analysis and the framework I have adopted, according to which the TAM area of the IP consists of three different fields, namely Mood, T, and Asp, Cornilescu’s () AgrSP, which hosts bare quantifiers, appears to be lower that Mood, most probably a TP/Agr-TP. Coupled with the insight that auxiliaries with a simple structure merge directly in a Mood0-head, while those with a more complex structure head-move to Mood0, the bare quantifier data reviewed above fall into place, without any need to resort to a SAI analysis. Why this position is no longer active in MR will be discussed in the next section.

.. :        - (i) The syntactic behaviour of OR discontiguous verbal clusters confirms the hypothesis formulated on the basis of the analysis of interpolation: lower verb movement along the clausal spine (movement to a lower position in the IP-domain, presumably Asp, or to a higher position in the vP-domain) is one of the parametric options of OR, namely the most residual one. In conjunction with the fact that auxiliaries occupy a high position in the IP, the existence of intermediary positions that accommodate the interposed constituents is ensured. The change that took place in the transition from OR to MR is the obligatory movement of the lexical verb to a higher position in the IP-domain – to a high position in the TP-field (see Nicolae 2015c:81–90, with references) – a change that gave rise to the clustering effects observed in MR auxiliary-verb constructions. A consequence of this change is that it is hard to determine whether scrambling positions are still available in the lower portion of the IP-domain in MR: the lexical verb having moved past the low IP-fields, it is difficult to determine whether a postverbal constituent displaced

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontiguous verbal clusters



from its merge position undergoes IP-scrambling or movement to the clause-internal vP-periphery. (ii) The analysis of discontiguous verbal clusters has also revealed that an argumental subject position is available in the IP of OR. This position is no longer active in MR (Cornilescu 2000; Alboiu and Hill 2017). While more research is necessary before a definitive conclusion may be drawn, I believe that, in conjunction with the findings of the present chapter, the verb-raising account put forward in chapter 2 offers an explanation for the fact that this argumental position ceased to be available in the passage from OR to MR. Recall that in the auxiliary-verb constructions of MR the auxiliary merges high, in the Mood-field, and the lexical verb undergoes movement to a high position in the TP-field. If V-raising targets specifiers (see the empirical arguments and their theoretical grounding in §2.3.1.4), then a plausible cause for why Spec,TP/Agr-TP may no longer accommodate an argumental subject is that this specifier is blocked by the moved verb itself. Except for assuming a different V-raising strategy, this solution is actually identical to Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s (2001) analysis, according to which in verb–subject–object (VSO) languages the extended projection principle (EPP) feature is checked by an element other than the subject, namely by the raised verb. (iii) Examples like (83) and (85), along with the residual existence of phenomena like Aux-licensed verbal ellipsis, have been taken as evidence for the existence of a vPinternal landing site for verb movement in discontiguous verbal clusters. However, examples like (90), in which the lexical verb is preceded by a V-raising adverbial occupying a low position in Cinque’s hierarchy, but the subject is postverbal, naturally raise the following question: What is the vP-internal landing site of the lexical verb in such constructions? The same problem is raised by examples of interpolation such as (36) in §3.2.2.4, which features an interpolated direct object and a postverbal subject. Under the current understanding of syntactic theory, the analysis according to which the lexical verb occupies a position in the vP predicts that the subject should also systematically precede the lexical verb, since subjects are standardly merged in Spec,vP. Examples with discontiguous verbal clusters and postverbal subjects are thus problematic for any account that assumes low verb movement. However, rather than discarding the analysis in which one potential landing site of the lexical verb is vP-internal, it would be preferable to reconsider the nature of the edge of the low clausal domain. The data reviewed here (as well as other cross-linguistic data) may in fact be taken to support the idea that phases are built in a parallel way (see, for explicit formulations, Su 2012 and Poletto 2014:59–66) and that the edge of the clause-internal domain should not be limited to the vP projection, but should rather be conceived of as being a complex domain, similar to the CP-domain. For example, authors like Baltin (2012) and Roberts (2013) explicitly include VoiceP in the clause-internal phasal domain (and analyse it as the vP-edge),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

while van Urk (2015) identifies a V2 effect at the edge of the transitive vP in Dinka Bor. What all these observations and proposals have in common is the idea that the left edge of the lexical domain consists of more than the minimal vP and includes at least VoiceP and information structure-accommodating projections that host topics and foci (some authors, e.g. Sue 2012, argue for an even richer structure). Thus, if we assume a more complex architecture of the vP-domain, one that provides more landing sites for V-raising, the apparently problematic data involving verbal clusters broken by adverbials and postverbal subjects naturally fall into place. While more research is needed in order to establish the fine-grained architecture of the higher portion of the vP-domain, the assumption that this domain is more complex than was previously thought provides the necessary syntactic space to account for the observed data.

. OTHER TYPES OF DISCONTIGUOUS LINEARIZATIONS This section reviews two other types of discontiguous linearizations, which involve, respectively, higher functional elements and complex modal predicates. These involve bring support for some of the claims put forward in the analyses of discontiguous verbal clusters and interpolation.

..       A particular discontiguous linearization specific to the present subjunctive occurs in th–th-century texts with a low frequency. In examples ()–(), the cluster made up of either the subjunctive complementizer să () or, more frequently, the complementizer să plus the clausal negator nu ‘not’ (()–()) and the lexical verb is broken by interposed phrasal constituents. The phenomenon occurs both with subordinate subjunctives ((a), (), (), (b)) and with main clause, independent subjunctives ((b), (a)). () a. preut¸ii băsearecilor cum se rrugăcinri priests. churches.. in.order.to ˘. prayers facă spre elu make.. towards him. ‘(to ask) the priests of the churches to utter prayers to him’ (CV.–:v) b. Să ainte apucăm fat¸a lui în ispovedire ˘. before sit.. face. his in confession ‘Let us sit before his face in confession’ (CL.:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Other types of discontiguous linearizations



() cum se ucigă fuglii se nu that ˘. kill.. fugitives. ˘. not neştinre noate se scape someone swim.. ˘. save.. ‘that he kills the fugitives in order to prevent someone saving themselves by swimming’ (CV.–:v) () Să nu mâncat¸ dintr-însul, ˘. not eat.. of=it ca să nu cu moarte murit¸. that ˘. not with death die.. ‘You should not eat from it, so that you don’t die’ (DPar.:II.r) dracul () a. Se nu oarecându dzică ˘. not ever say.. devil. ‘My devil should never say:’ (PH.–:v)

mieu: my

b. să nu cumva vină ucenicii Lui ˘. not somehow come.. disciples.. his. noaptea să-L fure pre El night. ˘.=... kidnap..  him. ‘his disciples should not somehow come at night to kidnap him’ (NT.:v) The constituent interposed in the cluster may be a DP, as in (a), an adverb, as in (b) and (), a PP, as in (), and, more importantly, a bare subject quantifier, as in (). As is obvious, this phenomenon is nothing but a variety of interpolation, subject to the same formal analysis (i.e. lower verb movement), with the sole difference that pronominal clitics are not present in the structure; rather the discontiguous linearization involves higher functional elements – the Fin0-particle să and the clausal negator. The fact that only the subjunctive occurs in such discontiguous linearizations confirms the conclusion drawn in §.., namely that movement to the highest TAM IP-projection became general with the subjunctive later than it did with other verb forms. It is also important to note that the very frequent presence of the adverbial (nu) cumva (‘(not) somehow’) in this interpolated structure in negative clauses such as (b) has led to the formation of the quasi-fixed and partly idiomatic structure să nu cumva să (~ ‘he/she/it mustn’t’/‘let it not, under any circumstances’), frequently employed in modern and contemporary Romanian (see also Nicolae c:). In MR, this structure involves the recomplementation of the subjunctive particle să in main and embedded clauses, in contrast to OR, where the second occurrence of să is not necessary (cf. (b)); there is also a ca . . . să counterpart in MR (ca nu cumva să), which occurs exclusively in embedded clauses (see Stan  on the ca . . . să

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

structure; also Nicolae c: for details on the să/ca nu cumva să alternation). What this shows is that in MR recomplementation is employed as a strategy to allow for the projection of a clausal left periphery that accommodates the constituent nu cumva, compensating for the absence of an IP-internal interpolation position, since interpolation is ungrammatical in MR.

..   -     This section briefly discusses modal complex predicates made up of the modal verb putea (‘can, be able to’) and a bare short infinitive.15 This modal configuration, first analysed by Gut¸u Romalo ( []) in a discussion of ‘semi-auxiliary’ verbs, is different from the auxiliary-verb constructions analysed in the previous section: in contrast to bona fide auxiliaries, the modal verb putea may inflect for all the verbal categories, so, essentially, it displays the inflectional behaviour of full verbs. With respect to the bare short infinitive selected by the modal verb, Nicolae (a) has shown that its maximal projection is Voice/vP; therefore it qualifies as a phasal domain. Even though the analysis proposed in Nicolae (d) concerns MR, it has been shown that this construction has the same syntactic properties in OR (Nedelcu :–), hence the formal analysis formulated for MR can be extended to OR as well. With respect to the analysis of interpolation and discontiguous verbal clusters, the complex predicate construction is relevant as it provides relevant data for the structure of the clause-internal low periphery (the edge of the Voice/vP-domain). Recall that, while the modal verb and bare short infinitive are not strictly adjacent in MR, at most one, preferably light, constituent (a pronoun, a short adverb, etc.) may be interposed between the modal verb and the infinitive (Nedelcu :–). By contrast, in OR a large set of constituents may be interposed between the modal verb and the infinitive: DP subjects, as in (a), and direct objects, as in (b)–(c), PPs, as in (d), and adverbial expressions, as in (e). () a. nu le pot oamenii not ... can... people. ‘people can’t believe them’ (NL.~–:)

crede believe.

15 In contrast to MR, where the verb putea may select either a bare short infinitive or a subjunctive, in OR the selectional possibilities of putea are more varied, as on the one hand the long infinitive still displayed verbal features in OR and could occur in the modal complex predicate configuration (see Nedelcu :–), and on the other the infinitive to subjunctive ratio was different in OR. In this section I focus only on the putea plus bare short infinitive configuration, which has the same properties as in MR.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Other types of discontiguous linearizations



b. Acicea popa, să va vrea, poate here priest. if .. want. can... cununile pune pre capetele lor wreaths. place. on heads. their ‘At this time, if the priest wants, he can place the wreaths on their heads’ (CM.:r) c. cela ce poate sufletul şi trupul piiarde that who can... soul. and body. destroy. ‘the one that can destroy the soul and the body’ (CC1.:v) d. să le putem cu drag ˘. ... can.. with joy ‘that we can gladly listen to them’ (CM.:v)

mare great

asculta listen.

e. să ne putem de acmu nainte ¸tinea ˘. .. can.. from now before keep. de cuvântul tău pren Domnul of word. your through God ‘to be able to respect your word through God’ (CM.:r) Multiple constituents may intervene between the modal verb and the bare short infinitive: () a. să ară putea sufletele oamenilor if .. can. souls. people. lăcui live. ‘if people’s souls could live here’ (CC1.:r)

acicea here

b. nu poate nimea cu faptele sale dereage not can... nobody with deeds. his mend. păcatul său sin. his ‘nobody is able to mend his sin with his deeds’ (CC1.:v) c. cum ară putea omul pre Iisus la casa lui how .. can. man.  Jesus at house. his priimi receive. ‘how someone could receive Jesus in their house’ (CC1.:v) Adopting the assumption that the bare short infinitive is a phasal domain, the syntactic space to the left of the infinitive represents the periphery of this phase. Given the monoclausal nature of the putea plus bare short infinitive configuration (Nicolae a) – which is shown, among other factors, by the fact that clitic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core

climbing to the modal verb is obligatory ((a), (d), (e)) and that only the modal verb may be negated by the clausal negator nu ((‘not’) (a), (b)) – the infinitival periphery actually represents the clause-internal low periphery. The data reviewed in ()–() show that the clause-internal periphery is more flexible in OR than in MR, as it accepts a wider set of complex constituents (see ()) and may even host multiple constituents (see ()).

. CONCLUDING REMARKS (i) Interpolation and discontiguous verbal clusters represent different manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon, namely a lower position of the lexical verb on the clausal spine. Given the limitations of diachronic inquiry, this exact position cannot be established with accuracy, yet there is evidence that the lexical verb targets a low position in the IP-domain or a higher position in the vP-domain. Thus, prior to raising to a high position in the IP-field (to the TP-field for the lexical verb in auxiliary-verb constructions, or to the Mood-field for the synthetic lexical verbs, see §2.2.1), which is the generalized option of MR, in OR there is evidence for an intermediary grammar with lower verb movement. (ii) The corpus examination has revealed that there are differences in the distribution and frequency of the various types of discontiguous linearizations. Interpolation, which is specific to synthetic verb forms, is considerably less frequent than discontiguous verbal clusters, which are specific to auxiliary-verb constructions. This indicates that the generalization of V-to-I raising did not proceed at the same pace for all verbal forms: synthetic verb forms generalized raising to the highest available TAM position in the IP-field (a MoodP, right-adjacent to the clitic-accommodating PersPs) earlier than did lexical verbs in auxiliary-verb constructions (raising to the TP-field, in this case). Furthermore, there are differences even among synthetic forms themselves: the present subjunctive occurs more productively in interpolated structures than the indicative, this indicating that V-to-Mood generalized slower with the subjunctive. (iii) The existence of lower verb movement in OR supports an important aspect of the diachrony of V-raising in Romance languages (also discussed in Ledgeway 2012). Given the facts examined here, the passage from late Latin (a language with an innovative grammar in root clauses, characterized by doubly triggered V-fronting, but also with a conservative grammar in embedded clauses, in which the verb does not raise at all or undergoes little movement inside the lexical vP-domain: see Salvi 2001 and Legdeway 2012) to Romanian consisted in a blend of two distinct processes: a relaxed V2 grammar, specific mostly to main clauses, but also a gradual process of V-raising to the left along the clausal spine – a process that characterizes embedded clauses where V-to-C movement is either blocked or strongly disfavoured. Thus, one

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Concluding remarks



of the important Latin-to-Romance diachronic changes, i.e. generalized V-to-I raising, appears to be the result of what may be called a process of transparadigmatic harmonization with different sources in matrix clauses (relaxed V2) and embedded clauses (gradual V-to-I raising). (iv) The examination of interpolation, discontiguous verbal clusters, and modal complex predicates also offers insights into the nature of the low, lexical domain of clauses and its periphery. The data examined here point to the fact that this domain, commonly labelled the vP-domain, should be conceived of as having a more complex architecture (as also shown by Cruschina and Ledgeway 2016:556–9), including at least a VoiceP on top of vP and, given its phasal nature, a periphery domain hosting topics and foci. The exact nature of this low clausal periphery in MR (see Alboiu 1999 for some observations on the VOS/VSO alternation) and of the diachronic changes that affect pragmatically marked constituents is the object of future research.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

4 Word order in the nominal phrase . INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEMS

..    Starting from the observation that ‘[t]he nominal domain of old Romanian underwent deeper structural changes in the passage to modern Romanian than did other areas of the grammar’ (Pană Dindelegan and Dragomirescu :), this chapter sets out to analyse the main changes in the syntax of Romanian nominal phrases as they are reflected in the ordering of DP-internal constituents. The first important OR/MR difference concerns the availability of two definiteness valuation patterns in OR, one of which was lost in the passage to MR. The retained pattern places the definite determiner in the first [+N] position of the nominal phrase: the definite article suffixed on the head noun (see (a)) or on a prenominal adjective (see (b)); and it includes freestanding prenominal determiners such as demonstratives (see (c)), genitives (see (d)), or possessive adjectives (see (e)). () a. şi împreună cu [DP ¸t ara ungurească] and together with country. Hungarian ‘and together with the Hungarian country’ (DÎ.:XXXIII) b. glăsi [DP evreiasca limbă] speak... Jewish. language ‘he spoke the Jewish language’ (CV.–:v) c. lângă [DP acel om sălbatec] next.to that man savage ‘next to that savage man’ (A.:r) d. [DP

alŭ evangheliei cuvântŭ] auzi-vămŭ .. gospel.. word. hear.=.. ‘we will hear the word of the gospel’ (CC2.: )

e. cu [DP al Tău dar] with .. your gift ‘with Your gift’ (DDL.:) Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. First edition. Alexandru Nicolae. © Alexandru Nicolae . First published  by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Introduction and problems



In the alternative pattern, dubbed the ‘low definite article construction’ (Cornilescu and Nicolae c), the enclitic definite article is suffixed on the non-DP-initial head noun; the definite noun is preceded by adjectives (see (a)), which would typically host the definite article (cf. (b)), or by other constituents – e.g. numerals (see (b)), which cannot inflect for definiteness and call for the insertion of the freestanding article cel in MR (b0 ) (Cornilescu ). () a. de mari şi de [DP putearnice faptele of great and of strong deeds. ‘of his great and strong deeds’ (CIst.–:r)

lui] his.

b. arătarea [DP a dooa venireei lui] showing. second coming.. his. ‘the showing of his second coming’ (CC2.:) b0 . cea de a doua venire  second coming ‘his second coming’

a ..

lui his.

(MR counterpart)

The transition from OR to MR sees a tightening of the conditions on definiteness valuation that leads to the disappearance of low definite article constructions. The second important OR/MR contrast concerns the greater accessibility and flexibility of the prenominal domain in OR (putting aside functional elements (determiners and quantifiers), which are typically prenominal in Romance and in all phases of Romanian). Except for qualifying adjectives, which still show variation between the postnominal and the prenominal position in MR (with relevant interpretative differences), a larger selection of DP-internal constituents may occur in prenominal position in OR: relational (classifying and thematic) adjectives, as in (); inflectional genitives and possessive adjectives, as in (); nominal arguments, as in (). () a. nazaescului eresu Nazareth... superstition ‘to the superstitions of Nazareth’ (CV.–:v) b. svint¸itul împărătescul scaun holy. imperial. seat ‘the holy imperial seat’ (DÎ.:XC) c. A lu Iacovu zborreasca tremeatere ..  Jacob synodal. sending ‘Jacob’s synodal sending’ (CV.–:v) () a. ale altuia munci şi sudori .. other. jobs and sweats ‘the jobs and pains of another one’ (FD.–:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase b. a mea parte de ocină din sat din Poieni .. my part of land from village of Poieni ‘my part of land of the village of Poieni’ (DÎ.:LXI)

() a. de oameni iubire of humans love ‘love of humans’ (CC2.:) b. cu a lui Dumnădzău with .  God ‘with God’s help’ (CD.:IIIv)

agiutoriu help

While it is not clear in the examples above whether the prenominal position is accessed via pragmatic edge-fronting (A-bar movement) or is the result of either low(er) N(P)-movement or roll-up movement (i.e. head finality) (see Ledgeway :–, a), OR provides evidence for the existence of residual head-final structures: complex phases in pre-head position in DPs (example ()) and APs (example ()), as well as discontinuous structures such as hyperbaton (example ()) are derivationally available only under a head-final parametric setting (Ledgeway a). () [DP [AP iubitorii de Hristos] creştini] lover. of Christ Christians ‘the Christ-loving Christians’ (AAM.:r) () [AP [VP

la pret¸ pret¸uire a da] vreadnic] nefiind at price valuing . give. worthy =be. ‘not being worthy of treasuring the price’ (CD.:IVr)

să lepădăm () toată acmu [AP lumasca]i all now worldly. ˘. hurl.. ‘let us now shun all worldly cares’ (DDL.:)

[DP

grije ti] care

Importantly, too, there are two other relevant DP-internal changes, the effects of which lead to word order rigidification. One of them is the specialization of adnominal demonstratives and the development of the postnominal demonstrative construction, which acquired a fixed word order in the passage to MR. After demonstrative specialization, there gradually emerges an adjectival article construction based on the weak distal demonstrative. These processes are discussed in detail in the next chapter. The other change concerns the conditions regulating the insertion of the freestanding genitival–possessive marker al, which introduces inflectional genitives or possessive adjectives in contexts in which the genitive or the possessive adjective is not right-adjacent to the suffixal definite article (for the general distribution of al in OR, see Stan c:– and Dragomirescu in press, with references). In OR, the insertion of al in the presence of the definite article (suffixed to a noun or

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Introduction and problems



an adjective) is optional: al may or may not be inserted, as in () and () respectively. In the passage to MR, the insertion of al in strict vicinity to the definite article (i.e. the examples in ()) was gradually lost. () a. săborul [al lor] in synod. .. their ‘in their synod’ (CC1.:v) b. sfântulŭ [alŭ lui] sânge holy. .. his blood ‘his holy blood’ (CC2.:) scumpului () a. Nesat¸iul greed. niggard.. ‘the niggard’s greed’ (Bert.:v) b. preacurata Ta icoană too.pure. your icon ‘your immaculate icon’ (DDL.: )

..    In what follows, I adopt the DP-hypothesis (Abney ; Longobardi ) in the analysis of nominal phrases, adapting the framework so as to make it reflect the most recent developments in syntactic theory. The standard structure of the extended nominal projection generally assumed in the analysis of Romanian (e.g. Cornilescu , ; Tănase-Dogaru ; Cornilescu and Nicolae c; Nicolae b etc.) is given in (): ()

DP > DemP > QP > (…) NP

Following Cornilescu and Nicolae (c, ) and Nicolae (d), who adopt Chomsky’s Agree-based model (see Chomsky  and subsequent work) and the featural theory that distinguishes between valuation and interpretability of features (Pesetsky and Torrego ), definiteness is viewed as an interpretable but unvalued feature (notated [idef] []), hosted by the functional head D0 (see ()) along with other features, e.g. φ-features. The details of the definiteness valuation process are given in §...

DP

()

D0 [idef ][]

NP

The following technical details should also be mentioned:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

(i) The D-head may split into an outer D-head and an inner D-head, giving rise to a split-DP structure (Aboh ; Giusti ; Laenzlinger ; Cornilescu and Nicolae a). (ii) Adjectives and other nominal modifiers merge as specifiers of functional projections (Cinque ); Cinque’s account of adjectival syntax is updated so as to reflect the interface account put forward in Cornilescu and Nicolae (), where a finer-grained classification of adjectives is adopted. This classification is based on three criteria (syntactic, ontological, and semantic– combinatorial); adjectives merge as specifiers in hierarchically distinct domains of the extended nominal projection. Finer technical details will be introduced along the way when necessary. The outline of the chapter is as follows. Section . investigates changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects on word order change and other phenomena. Section . focuses on the higher flexibility of the prenominal domain. Section . discusses discontinuous structures, showing that the proposed analysis of definiteness valuation in conjunction with other parametric settings of OR (i.e. residual head finality) accounts for the particular features of OR hyperbaton. Although the behaviour of the marker al is discussed at certain points in the chapter, the changes in the conditions on its insertion (see ()–()) are not the object of a separate section, because this would require a lengthy discussion of the diachrony of Romanian genitives (on this topic, see Cornilescu and Nicolae , b), a detailed account of the still unresolved etymology of al (see Giurgea b), and details on the intricate diatopic (and even diaphasic and diamesic) distribution of al throughout OR (see Stan c:–; Dragomirescu in press, with references). All these subjects are, to a certain degree, orthogonal to the overall discussion of word order.

. CHANGES IN THE PATTERNS OF DEFINITENESS VALUATION AND THEIR EFFECTS As in earlier chapters, this section begins by looking at MR syntax, then turns to diachronic developments. First, the arguments put forward in favour of the idea that the enclitic definite article is an inflectional suffix are reviewed and integrated into the assumed theory of definiteness valuation. Second, the section discusses the MR patterns of definiteness valuation and definiteness agreement or spreading. Then, the low definite article construction specific of OR and the other main related phenomena are examined against this background.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



..         ... Suffixal nature of the Romanian enclitic definite article This subsection briefly summarizes the arguments that have been put forward to support the inflectional suffixal nature of the Romanian enclitic definite article (Lombard :; Halpern ; Ortmann and Popescu ; Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea ; Nicolae a, b; Ledgeway b; Dragomirescu in press). The evidence presented below is not exhaustive, but rather highlights the main diagnostics previously invoked. (i) Distribution. The enclitic article has a strict distribution: it occurs on the first [+N] constituent of the DP, a noun or an adjective (example ()); it is repeated under coordination (example ()), but not under stacking (example ()); it shows sensitivity to the base it attaches to – the base must be φ-complete, otherwise either the article gets realized on the lower noun (example (a)) in the situation of the small class of defective adjectives (ditamai, cogeamite ‘huge, hell of ’, etc.), or an alternative definiteness valuation strategy is employed (example (b0 )) in the case of numerals, which do participate in φ‑feature agreement but are unable to bear the definite article and thus satisfy the first [+N] constituent condition (example (b));1 under certain conditions, polydefiniteness or determiner spreading (multiple realization of the definite article) is available in MR (see (); in OR polydefiniteness is much more pervasive, see §....). () a. cafeaua coffee. b. gustoasa cafea tasty. coffee ‘the tasty coffee’ () gustoasa şi aromata tasty. and flavoured. ‘the tasty and flavoured coffee’

cafea coffee

() a. vechiul mare oraş old. big city ‘the old grand city’ b. *vechiul marele oraş old. big. city The φ-completeness of numerals and their ability to inflect for case and definiteness is a languagespecific property; in other languages with definite affixes (e.g. Modern Standard Arabic), cardinal numerals may be inflected for case and bear the definite article (see the discussion in Nicolae d:–). 1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

() a. ditamai câinele huge dog. ‘(the) huge dog’ a0 . *ditamaiul huge. b. *treile three.

câine dog fete girls

b0 . cele trei fete  three girls ‘the three girls’ () săracul băiatul poor. boy. ‘this/my poor boy’

ăsta / this

meu my

(ii) Inflection. The suffixal definite article shows phonologically conditioned allomorphy, as its realization is dependent on the particularities of the base. For example, masculines ending in ‑u take the allomorph -l (a), while masculines ending in -e take the allomorph -le (b). For the full allomorphic variation of the Romanian definite article, see Stan (a) and Dragomirescu (in press). () a. codru forest b. frate brother

!

codrul forest.

!

fratele brother.

(iii) Phonology. The enclisis of the article may alter the syllabic structure of the base, as in (), modify the nature of sounds by turning semivowels into full vowels or vice versa, as in (), and determine stress shift, as in (). See Stan (a) for details. () leu [leṷ] lion

!

leul [le.ul] lion.

() floare [flo̭are] flower

!

floarea [flo̭arḙa] flower.

() radio ['radio] radio

!

radioul [radi'oul] radio.

(iv) Arbitrary gaps, idiosyncrasies, and irregularities. Numerous arbitrary gaps, irregularities, and idiosyncrasies show that the article is analysed as a part of the inflectional structure of the noun, as these are properties typical of inflectional morphology and not of clitics, as is known since Zwicky and Pullum’s () seminal work. A cursory list includes failure to combine with certain nouns (e.g. names of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



months, except for May and, possibly, August: ianuarie ‘January’, *ianuariele ‘January- ’, but mai ‘May’, maiul ‘May-’; neologisms: dingo ‘dingo’, *dingoul ‘dingo‑’, but cf. zero ‘zero’, zeroul ‘zero- ’); choice of a feminine allomorph with a masculine noun dictated by the typically feminine-looking form of the base, not by grammatical gender (e.g. papă ‘Pope()’, papa ‘Pope()..’/*papăl ‘Pope()..’); reanalysis of the article as part of the noun and its reduplication (e.g. compare standard ouă-le ‘eggs-’ with substandard ouă-le-le ‘eggs--’). For a comprehensive discussion of the arbitrary gaps, irregularities, and idiosyncrasies involving the enclitic definite article, see Ledgeway (b). In conclusion, the enclitic definite article must be considered an inflectional suffix, and the forms inflected for definiteness should be taken as exponents of ‘a definite declension contrasting with the exponents of the non-definite declension’ (Ledgeway b:) (cf. also Giurgea a:–). This has important consequences for the syntax of Romanian definite DPs. Adopting an inferential model of morphology (Stump ; Corbett ; cf. also Kibort ), we will consider that inflectional affixation is a pre-syntactic phenomenon: lexical items may enter the syntactic derivation already specified as [+definite]. This line of analysis is supported by recent work in generative grammar (e.g. ‘inflectional forms of the word are created by morphosyntactic feature specification, rather than just added as separate morphemes’, Faarlund :) and linguistic typology (‘the “rule” that determines which elements have to realize particular inflections is found in the lexicon in the form of a generalization over the relevant part of speech or a subclass within a part of speech’, Kibort :). In a threefold typology that distinguishes morphosemantic, (purely) morphological, and morphosyntactic features (Kibort ; Corbett , ), definiteness in Romanian is grammaticalized as a morphosyntactic feature. This is shown by its participation in syntactic agreement and licensing (Nicolae d), the two key characteristics of (canonical) morphosyntactic features (Kibort ; Corbett ): polydefiniteness (see (); the discussion in §....; Croitor ) and definiteness on prenominal adjectives (see ()–()) are effects of syntactic agreement in definiteness; adjacency to the definite article licenses inflectional genitives or possessive adjectives in the absence of the marker al (see () and the discussion of ()–()). Romanian is thus specified as positive for Danon’s () Parameter of Definiteness. This parametric setting accounts for definite DP syntax disanalogies between Romanian and the other Romance languages (Ledgeway b:). To sum up, I will adopt the hypothesis that definiteness is a morphosyntactic feature in Romanian and that nouns enter the derivation specified as [+definite]: definiteness is a privative feature (Danon ), which is valued, but uninterpretable on nouns [u+def ]; definite nouns may thus supply a value for the interpretable [idef ] feature of D0, along with other freestanding determiners, and the deletion of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

[u+def] feature of the noun is ensured by Agree between D0 (the Probe) and the first constituent that bears the definite article in the c-command domain of D0, a definite noun or adjective (the Goal).

... Patterns of definiteness valuation The patterns of definiteness valuation are examined against this background. In what follows, I distinguish between ‘definiteness agreement’ and ‘definiteness valuation’: valuation reflects the relation between an interpretable feature [iF] and an unintepretable (but valued) feature [uF][val], with the effect of deleting the uninterpretable feature [uF] and of supplying a value for the interpretable unvalued feature (e.g. [idef ] valuation in ()); agreement represents the relation that ensures that two features have the same value (e.g. agreement in definiteness between a prenominal adjective and a definite noun in ()). Definite DPs consisting of a single definite noun represent the simplest configuration: Agree is established between D0 and the definite NP, ensuring valuation of [idef] on D0 and deletion of [u+def ] on the definite N. Agree suffices to value the features of D0, hence movement to (Spec,)D is not conceptually necessary. In the Agree-based framework (Chomsky  and subsequent work) adopted here, movement to (Spec,)D would take place only if D0 independently bears an EPP-style feature. Endowing D0 with an EPP feature entails systematic movement of definite article-bearing constituents to the DP-edge, predicting, among other things, the availability of discontinuous DPs in MR – as Spec,DP is an escape hatch (Szabolcsi ) – contrary to fact. () copilul child.def DP

NP D0 [idef][+def] agree N0 (definiteness [u+def] valuation)

copilul

The second important configuration is represented by prenominal adjectives (example ()). Assume that definiteness is part of the feature set of adjectives, alongside φ-features. Definiteness on adjectives is neither valued nor interpretable (adjectives are thus specified as [udef ]), and adjectives may undergo definiteness agreement only if they are in an appropriate configuration with a definite noun: in order to be valued as [+definite], the [udef ] Probe of the adjectival head must c-command the definite noun, as in (i). (In configurations with stacked adjectives

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



(e.g. ()), this step is recursive, ensuring definiteness agreement on the highest adjectival head.) In the next step of the derivation, represented by (ii), the [idef ] feature of D0 is valued against the [u+def ] feature on the adjective, ensuring the deletion of all the uninterpretable features linked by the Agree chain. ()

i.

gustoasa cafea tasty.def coffee ‘the (tasty) coffee’ FP →

AP [u+def]

F agree (definiteness agreement)

F’ 0

gustoasa

DP

ii.

-D0 [idef][+def]

FP

agree AP (definiteness [u+def] valuation)

NP N0 [u+def ]

F’ F0

NP N0 [u+def]

cafea gustoasa

cafea

That definiteness agreement is established in a c-command configuration is shown by the inability of postnominal adjectives (as in ()) and of adjectives in post-copular predicative position (as in ()) to undergo definiteness agreement. Neither structure ensures the c-command configuration necessary for definiteness agreement. In the particular case of post-copular adjectives, assuming a small clause analysis of copular constructions (e.g. den Dikken ), with the (definite) subject in the specifier and the predicative adjective in the complement position, at no point in the derivation prior to DP-internal [idef ] valuation is the c-command configuration between the adjective and the noun established. The fact that predicative adjectives do not undergo definiteness agreement regardless of word order has been repeatedly signalled with reference to both MR and OR (Guruianu :–; Carabulea ; Frâncu :–; Dragomirescu  for OR; Zafiu :– for the th century). () cafeaua gustoasă coffee. tasty ‘the tasty coffee’ () a. Cafeaua coffee.

este is

/

*gustoasa tasty. /

*gustoasa. tasty.

este is

cafeaua. coffee.

gustoasă tasty

b. Gustoasă / *gustoasa tasty tasty. ‘The coffee is tasty’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

The fact that the definiteness feature is still present on the N-head but remains unpronounced is shown by its occurrence as a last resort means to license a postnominal strong demonstrative (example ()) or a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective (example ()) in the presence of prenominal affective adjectives (which, given their obligatorily prenominal position, undergo definiteness agreement by default). The first construction, (), is discussed in detail in the next chapter (§....). In the second construction, (), alongside surfacing on the highest [+N] constituent, i.e. the prenominal adjective, definiteness is also realized on the lower noun for reasons of representational economy (cf. Chomsky :–): adjacency to the definite article ensures that postnominal genitives or possessives are introduced without the marker al (compare (a) to (b)); hence the lower copy of the definite article is realized in () as a strategy to choose a smaller (hence less costly) lexical array, i.e. the lexical array that does not contain the marker al (the lexical array containing al yields ()). () săracul băiatul acela poor. boy. that ‘that poor boy’ () săracul băiatul meu / Mariei poor. boy. my Mary. ‘my/Mary’s poor boy’ () săracul băiat al meu / Mariei poor. boy. .. my Mary. ‘my/Mary’s poor boy’ () a. băiatul meu / Mariei boy. my Mary. b. băiatul înalt al meu / Mariei boy. tall .. my Mary. ‘my/Mary’s (tall) boy’ An alternative pattern of definiteness valuation is active in DPs with cardinal and ordinal numerals (example (a)). Numerals undergo ϕ-feature agreement with the head noun, but are inflectionally defective and cannot undergo definiteness agreement and take over the definite article (example (b)); unlike with adjectives, definiteness is not part of the feature set of numerals. The definite article cannot be realized on the lower noun either, owing to the first [+N] position constraint on definiteness realization (example (c)). Φ-feature agreement is ensured by successive Agree relations between higher c-commanding constituents (D0, and, respectively, CardP) and the lower c‑commanded noun; ϕ-feature agreement of numerals ensures that they count as the first [+N] constituent in the c-command domain of D0.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



A defective intervention effect thus emerges (details in Cornilescu and Nicolae :–). The freestanding article cel is inserted as a last resort strategy of definiteness valuation (example ()). Like the suffixal definite article, cel is also indirectly diachronically derived from Lat.  (‘that’) (see §. for details); this testifies to the cyclical diachronic uniformity of the definiteness marking or valuation in Romanian. One other ungrammatical configuration is (d), featuring both cel and a noun inflected for definiteness; in this configuration, the [u+def ] feature of the head noun remains undeleted (the [idef ] feature of D0 being valued by merger of cel), which leads to a derivational crash. The grammaticalization of cel in quantificational DPs is discussed in detail in the next chapter (§.). () a. cele două .. two. ‘the two girls’ b. *două-le two.-. c. *două two.

fete girls()

fetele girls().

d. *cele .. ()

fete girls()

două two.

fetele girls().

cele două fete cel.f.pl two.f girls(f) DP D0 QP [idef][+def] CardP

Q’ Q0

cele [u+def] două

NP

fete

... Summary The following results will be retained: (i) Definiteness starts out as a suffix on the head noun; definiteness on prenominal adjectives is the effect of agreement, established in a c-command configuration. (ii) Besides keeping distinct definiteness valuation and definiteness agreement, it is also important to distinguish agreement from definiteness realization, which is a PF/Spell-out phenomenon. Thus, in simple [A+N] configurations such as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase (), definiteness is syntactically present on both constituents, but is realized on the first [+N] constituent; by contrast, in more complex configurations with obligatorily prenominal adjectives and postnominal demonstratives or with genitives or possessive adjectives [A+N+Dem/Gen/Poss], as in ()–(), definiteness is realized on both the adjective and the noun, the realization of lower copy being triggered by economy reasons.

A generalization concerning the syntax of definiteness in MR thus emerges (modelled on Cornilescu and Nicolae c:): ()

In MR, the bearer of definiteness must be the first [+N] constituent in the c‑command domain of D.

..       This section analyses the low definite article construction and examines its consequences for the syntax of OR DPs. Low definite article constructions are attested throughout OR in both nontranslated writings and translations (Cornilescu and Nicolae c; Stan b:). Relics are still found in the language of the th century (Nicolae a). A syntactic archaism preserved until the present day is the fixed liturgical formula după mare mila ta (lit. after great kindness. yours ‘according to thy loving kindness’). In what follows, I will focus only on DPs with overt nominal heads. This helps to avoid a situation in which the definite article is the licensor of ellipsis or the marker of substantivization. Diachronically, the freestanding article cel encroached on the territory of the suffixal definite article, hence, in this respect, the division of labour between these two functional elements changes diachronically; this issue is discussed in the next chapter (§...) and in Dragomirescu and Nicolae (). P-ambiguous configurations (e.g. copula-less inverted predications) have also been excluded.

... DP-internal distribution This section examines the low definite article patterns, focusing on the constituents that precede nouns inflected for definiteness. The low definite article occurs most frequently in the presence of prenominal adjectives: () a. cu [DP cinstită cartea mării with honoured letter. highness.. ‘with your highness’ honoured letter’ (DÎ.:CVI)

tale] your

b. s-au oploşit în [DP vicleană făgăduint¸a lui] ..=.. sheltered in sly promise. his ‘he took shelter in his sly promise’(CLM.–:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



Prenominal adjectives accompanying proper names may also be used in a low definite article construction. Note the alternation below between a non-definite prenominal adjective in (a) and a definite prenominal adjective in (b). Assuming that proper names are inherently definite, the article realized on the prenominal adjective in (b) is the result of definiteness agreement with the c-commanded proper noun; conversely, the absence of the article on the prenominal adjective in (a) instantiates the same pattern as in () above, where definiteness fails to be realized on the DP-initial constituent. () a. Cum învat¸ă [DP sfânt Petru Apostol] în  Carte how teach... saint Peter Apostle in st Epistle ‘How saint Peter the Apostle preaches in his st Epistle’ (SA.:v-r) b. Zice [DP înt¸eleptul Solomon] say... wise. Solomon ‘wise Solomon says’ (AD.–:r) The prenominal genitive/possessive adjective may also precede the definite noun. Although the prenominal genitive/possessive adjective typically functions as a (definite) determiner in OR (cf. (d)–(e)), in the examples in () the article suffixed on the noun values definiteness and the genitive/possessive assumes a mere attributive function (just as it does in postnominal position), with no involvement in definiteness valuation (Cornilescu and Nicolae b). () a. a ceriului împăratul . sky.. emperor. ‘the emperor of the heavens’ (PH.–:r) b. Umblăm după [DP a lumii înşelătoare fat¸a] search... after .. world.. deceitful face. ‘We are after the world’s deceitful face’ (CVL.:v) c. au aflat cap şi începătura moşilor (…) .. find. head and beginning. ancestors.. ca să nu se îneace [DP a toate ¸t ărâle so ˘. not .. drown . all countries. anii trecut¸i] years. passed ‘They found the origin and the beginning of their ancestors so that the history (= the years that passed) of all countries may not be drowned into oblivion’ (ULM.~:A-,f.) d. i-am vândut de [DP (a) mea bunăvoia] ..=.. sell. of .. my good.will. ‘I sold it to him of my own good will’ (DÎ.:VII)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

Strong demonstratives may also occur in the low definite article construction (see ()); this pattern is relatively frequent. Definiteness valuation is thus ensured by the definite noun and proceeds across the strong demonstrative. The next chapter (§...) discusses the instrumental role played by this pattern in the reanalysis of adnominal strong demonstratives as deictic adjectives unable to value definiteness. () a. [DP

aceasta moşia] vândut-am this. property. sell.=.. ‘I sold this property’ (DÎ.–:XIII)

b. însuşŭ acela judecătoriulŭ dereptŭ himself that. judge. honest ‘that honest judge himself ’ (CC2.:) One last important point: the low definite article construction is also available with cardinal and ordinal numerals, as illustrated in () and () respectively. () deade Dumnezeu [DP zeace cuvintele give... God ten words. ‘God gave his ten commandments’ (CCat.:r)

sale] his

lui] () a. arătarea [DP a dooa venireei showing. second coming.. his ‘the showing of his second coming’ (CC2.:) b. [DP

Al doilea mărturisitoriul] (…) iaste second confessor. be... ‘The second confessor is Saint Job’ (CC1.:v)

Sfânt saint

Iov Job

These quantificational patterns are mostly attested in Deacon Coresi’s th-century translations. It is important to mention that the non-prosthetic weak distal demonstrative cel first became grammaticalized as a freestanding article in this very context: in DPs with cardinal and ordinal numerals (see the full discussion in the next chapter, §..). This explains the very rare occurrence of the patterns in () and () and their early disappearance: at the time of the earliest writings, the alternative definiteness valuation pattern described in ()–() was already at work. Note also that there is variation in DPs with numerals: for example, in () the freestanding article cel co-occurs with a noun suffixed by the definite article. () şăzu cu [DP cei doisprăzeace ucenicii ai Lui] sit... with .. twelve apostles. .. his ‘he sat with his twelve apostles’ (NT.:v) In conclusion, all the patterns discussed here were gradually lost in the passage to MR. The low definite article in DPs with cardinal and ordinal numerals (()–()) was lost very early on as a result of competition with the freestanding article cel. The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



low definite article preceded by adnominal strong demonstratives was not actually lost, but rather underwent a word order change (which is analysed in detail in the next chapter, §..): in MR, the definite noun undergoes obligatory movement to the left of the demonstrative in order to satisfy the first [+N] constituent condition on definiteness valuation. The first two patterns (involving non-definite prenominal adjectives and prenominal genitives or possessive adjectives) are the most frequent ones: they are attested throughout OR, gradually falling into disuse by the outset of early modern Romanian. Only relics are attested after .

... Triggering factors and syntactic analysis This section examines the factors that favour the lower realization of the definite article and puts forward a syntactic analysis of the low definite article construction. The quantitative data presented in this section merge some results reported in Cornilescu and Nicolae (c) with novel data reported here for the first time. Cornilescu and Nicolae (c) have observed that the low definite article mostly occurs in the context of a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective, as shown in (). Postnominal demonstratives may also occur in this pattern (see ()); the low definite article construction rarely occurs in the absence of postnominal dependents (see ()). () a. cu [DP mari lavda şi bucuriia čelui dom] with great appraisal. and happiness. that. lord ‘with the great appraisal and happiness of that voivode’ (DÎ.:C) b. că văzuiu [DP luminată fat¸a that see... bright face. r ‘that I saw your bright face’ (A.: )

ta] your

aceaia] orbăcăind () prin [DP întunecoasă ciat¸a through gloomy mist. that fumble. ‘and fumbling through that gloomy mist’(CII.~:) () să potoale Vasilie vodă [DP sunate zarvele], pre ˘. temper.. Basil voivode noisy rumours.  fecioru-său […] l-au tremis la Țarigrad son-his ...=.. send. to Constantinople ‘in order for Basil voivode to temper the noisy rumours, he sent his son to Constantinople’ (CLM.–:v) However, postnominal genitives or possessive adjectives are only a favouring factor. Consider the following examples from SA., a text in which the low definite article construction is productive: example () features a low definite article construction in the presence of a postnominal genitive; conversely, we observe in ()

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

that a postnominal genitive does not necessarily trigger a lower realization of the definite article. () supt [DP putearnică mâna lui Dumnezeu] under strong hand.  God ‘under God’s strong hand’ (SA.:v) () pentru [DP fericita casă a măriei tale] for happy. house .. highness.. your ‘for your highness’s happy house’ (SA.:v) Here are some quantitative considerations, based on the analysis of two varying patterns: the most frequent low definite article construction represented by the pattern [non-definite adjective + definite noun] (), contrasted with the high definite article pattern, [definite adjective + non-definite noun] (= high definite article) (). On the basis of an extensive analysis of the Moldovan and Wallachian chronicles and of CII.~, Cornilescu and Nicolae (c) conclude that, in the context of a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective, the low definite article occurs in . per cent of the cases and the high definite article occurs in . per cent of the cases. In certain texts (e.g. CLM.–:v), the low definite article is the only option in such contexts. The non-translated writings of the th century collected in DÎ feature  occurrences of the word order pattern [adjective + noun] in definite DPs. Of these,  ( per cent) are occurrences of the low definite article construction, all of them in the presence of a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective. The remaining  occurrences ( per cent) are high definite article constructions; there are  occurrences (. per cent) of the high definite article in the context of a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective, the remaining  examples (. per cent) being characterized by the absence of postnominal genitives or possessive adjectives. In the popular novel A., where prenominal adjectives are extremely rare, there is only one occurrence of the low definite article (my example (b)), in the context of a postnominal possessive adjective. In the book of sermons SA., in the first  per cent of the text examined quantitatively, there are  occurrences of the pattern [adjective + noun],  of them with the low definite article,  with the high definite article. In the former group the pattern occurs exclusively in the context of a postnominal possessive adjective. In the latter, it occurs in the context of a postnominal genitive only once (my example ()); the other  occurrences happen in the absence of postnominal genitives or possessive adjectives. It can thus be concluded that postnominal genitives or possessive adjectives strongly favour the lower realization of the suffixal definite article. On the basis of the account of definiteness valuation proposed for MR in §.., there are two possible formal analyses for the low definite article constructions of OR.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



(i) The low definite article construction represents a matter of definiteness realization, not of definiteness valuation. Specifically, OR constructions like () are of the same type as the double definite constructions productive in OR () and still attested marginally in MR (see example (), reprinted here): in () the article, which starts out on the head noun, is syntactically present on both the higher adjective and on the lower noun, but is realized only on the lower noun; by contrast, in () both copies of the article are spelled out. Taking into account the strong preference for the low realization of the definite article in the presence of a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective, the low realization of the definite article is triggered by the same considerations of economy that trigger double definiteness in MR (see §... on the interpretation of example ()): the adjacency of the postnominal genitive or possessive adjective to the definite article ensures the direct insertion of the genitive or possessive adjective, without the mediation of the marker al (see the discussion of examples () and () in §..). Conversely, if the article is realized only on the higher adjective, al-insertion is compulsory (cf. example ()). () ca [DP iubit¸i frat¸ilor noştri] as beloved brothers.. our ‘as to our beloved brothers’ (DÎ.:XVIII) () păntru voia [DP luminatului craiului for will. enlightened.. prince.. ‘for the will of the enlightened Polish prince’ (DÎ.:XVIII) () săracul băiatul meu / poor.def boy. my ‘my/Mary’s poor boy’ (MR)

leşescu] Polish

Mariei Mary.

Thus, under this analysis, the difference between OR and MR is reduced to a condition on the realization of definiteness: in MR, the highest copy of the article, which represents the Goal for the [idef ][] probe in D must be obligatorily spelled out, while in OR this this spell-out condition is not obligatory. (ii) There are, however, several distributional factors that tilt the balance in favour of an analysis of the low definite article construction in terms of definiteness valuation, not definiteness realization. To begin with, recall that the conditions on the insertion of al were not fixed in OR (()–()): adjacency to the definite article does not guarantee that al-insertion is blocked (cf. ()). Thus the economy considerations invoked above do not represent a watertight argument, as the adjacency of the postnominal genitive or possessive adjective to the definite article does not guarantee that al is not inserted. () rranele nedereptat¸ilor ale lor wounds. injustices.. .. their ‘the wounds of their injustices’ (PH.–:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

() făcătoriul ceriului şi al pământului maker. heaven.. and .. earth.. ‘the maker of heaven and earth’ (CM.:v) Second and more importantly, as shown in the previous section, it is not the case that only adjectives may precede a noun inflected for definiteness. Rather, a bigger set of DP-internal constituents may actually precede a definite noun: prenominal genitives or possessive adjectives (example ()), strong demonstratives (example ()), cardinal and ordinal numerals (examples () and ()). What is crucial is that none of these other constituents may be inflected for definiteness. This indicates that the analysis of the low definite article construction should not be reduced to variation in the realization of definiteness. Rather, what the internal structure of low definite article phrases shows is that the [idef ] feature in D0 is able to probe across this set of prenominal constituents. In other words, there is longdistance valuation of definiteness across intervening prenominal constituents. This is depicted in the derivation in (). () a. cinstită honoured b. a al.inv c. aceasta this.s d. zeace ten e. a dooa second

cartea letter.def ceriului împăratul sky.def.gen emperor.def moşia property.def cuvintele words.def venireei coming.def.gen

(33a) (35a) (36a) (37) (38a)

DP D0 [idef][+def]

XP XP

agree (definiteness valuation)

NP N0

AP: cumplită DP: a ceriului DemP: aceasta CardP: zeace OrdP: a dooa

[u+def]

cartea împăratul moșia cuvintele venireei

To conclude, OR is characterized by a different condition on definiteness valuation, given in () (compare it to the generalization that holds for MR, given in ()):

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects ()



In OR, the bearer of definiteness need not be the first [+N] constituent in the c‑command domain of D.

The next section examines a set of empirical data that show that long-distance definiteness valuation has deeper effects on the grammar of definite DPs, most of which are directly reflected in a higher degree of word order variation.

... Long-distance valuation in old Romanian: Consequences .... Word order rigidification The availability of long-distance definiteness valuation predicts the existence of constructions in which definite determiners other than the (low) definite article do not occupy the DP-initial position (Cornilescu and Nicolae c:–). Albeit not very frequent, these structures are attested: example () features non-DP-initial demonstratives and example () a prenominal determiner genitive; in both cases these are preceded by a non-definite adjective or adjective plus noun. () a. sosiră asupra noastră [DP cumplite acestea vremi de acmu] come... upon us terrible these. times of now ‘these terrible times of now came upon us’ (CLM.–:r) b. arătându-i [DP mare treabă aceasta] showing=.. big affair this. ‘showing him this big affair’ (CLM.–:v) mare a vicleşugului căptuşală] () pre [DP mai  more big .. guile.. hiding o făcea ... make... ‘he resorted to a deeper hiding of his guile’ (= ‘he hid his guile deeper’) (CII.~:) Regardless of the syntactic analysis adopted (i.e. a split DP-approach in which the prenominal adjectives occupy a DP-internal left-periphery position or a non-split DP-analysis in which the constituents occupy their base-generated positions), this distribution indicates that probing from the highest D0 head that accommodates the [idef ][] feature proceeds across the prenominal adjective or adjective plus noun, thereby ensuring definiteness valuation. More spectacular are examples such as (), in which an adjective inflected for definiteness precedes a cardinal numeral: () Cântecele [DP sfint¸ilor trei feciori] songs. sacred.. three sons ‘the songs of the three sacred sons’ (CP1.:v) The word order in () is available only if probing may proceed across the cardinal numeral. The derivation proceeds as follows: (i) there is definiteness and φ-feature

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

agreement between the adjective and the head noun, as shown in (i); (ii) the cardinal numeral merges as a specifier in QP and undergoes φ-feature agreement with the c-commanded adjective, a step depicted in (ii); (iii) next, D0 merges and there is long-distance definiteness valuation, as shown in (iii); (iv) finally, the definite AP moves to Spec,DP, see (iv). The final step is possible only upon establishing a long-distance Agree relation between D0 and the moved constituent. () FP

i. AP [u+def] [uϕ][m.pl]

F’ F0

CardP [uϕ][m.pl] NP

agree (definiteness and ϕ-feature agreement)

Q’

agree (ϕ-feature agreement)

N0

Q0

feciori

FP AP

[u+def] [uϕ][m.pl]

sfinților iii.

QP

ii.

trei

NP

sfinților

feciori

DP D0

QP

[idef][+def] [iϕ][m.pl]

CardP [uϕ][m.pl]

Q’ Q0

FP AP [u+def] [uϕ]

agree (definiteness valuation)

trei iv.

F’ F0

NP feciori

sfinților

DP AP

D’ D0

QP CardP

Q’ Q0

FP F’

AP F0 sfinților

trei

sfinților

NP feciori

F’

[u+def] [uϕ][m.pl] F0

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Changes in the patterns of definiteness valuation and their effects



This pattern is available only in the th century, where the low definite article is still residually attested in quantificational DPs. Recall that the alternative definiteness valuation pattern with the freestanding definite article cel was already in use in the th century, a fact that explains the rarity of the word order in () and its early disappearance. Minimally different are examples in which definite adjectives precede strong demonstratives (), also discussed in the next chapter (§...). What is relevant here is that movement of the definite adjective across the strong demonstrative is possible only if there is prior long-distance probing across the strong demonstrative. () avea [sventele acealea mueri] had holy. those.s women ‘those holy women had’ (CazV.:r) To sum up, the gradual disappearance of the low definite article construction and of the mechanism underlying it determines a gradual loss of all the word order patterns discussed in this section. The disappearance of all the structures based on long-distance definiteness valuation ultimately produces an effect of word order rigidification, eliminating a subset of the possible DP-internal word orders attested in OR. .... Logic of polydefiniteness As is known, polydefiniteness (i.e. the multiple realization of the suffixal definite article) was much more productive in OR than in MR (Croitor , with references). Several authors (Croitor ; Cornilescu and Nicolae c; Stan b, ) have observed that the multiple realization of the article is not distributed randomly within DPs; rather certain DP‑internal word order patterns favour it, while others resist it. The proposed analysis of definiteness agreement makes clear predictions about the distribution of polydefiniteness. As definiteness agreement is based on a c-command relation between and unvalued uninterpretable feature [udef ] of an adjective and a valued uninterpretable feature [u+def ] with which the head noun is associated at merge (informally, the definiteness feature percolates upwards), an important prediction is that the most frequent and productive polydefinite structures are those in which the adjective is prenominal. This prediction is borne out: polydefinite [adjective + noun] structures such as () are attested throughout the entire OR period, while polydefinite [noun + adjective] structures such as () are extremely rare and limited to the th century (Vasiliu :–; Stan b:–, ): () a. şi naintea [DP sfântului papei] and before saint.. pope.. ‘and before the saint pope’ (DÎ.:XCII)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase b. Pănă la [DP cumplita domniia lui Aaron vodă] until at terrible. reign.  Aaron prince ‘until Prince’s Aaron terrible reign’ (CLM.–:r)

ei noa () a. cusătura sewing. her. new. ‘her new sewing’ (CT.–:r; Stan b) b. cetatea efeseiasca fortress. Ephesian. ‘the Ephesian fortress’ (CV.–:v; Stan b) Another prediction concerns prenominal stacked adjectival configurations. In MR, under stacking, the definite article is realized on the highest adjective in the hierarchy, although it is syntactically present on all the prenominal adjectives, as definiteness agreement proceeds through local c-command between the higher and the lower adjectives. OR confirms the hypothesis that the definiteness feature is present on all the adjectives in a stacked configuration: witness the polydefinite stacked adjectives in (). () a. Poftit-au […] [DP svint¸itul împărătescul scaun] desire.=.. holy. imperial. seat ‘He desired the holy imperial seat’ (DÎ.:XC) b. moaştiile a [DP sfintei prepodobnei relics. . saint.. beautifully-adorned.. Paraschevei] Parascheva. ‘the relics of the holy beautifully-adorned Parascheva’ (CLM.–:r) A final point that should be mentioned is that polydefinitness also occurs in the postnominal demonstrative construction, as in () (Densusianu , II:, –; Frâncu :; Stan b:). Present throughout the entire old period (residually retained in present-day non-standard Romanian),2 polydefinite postnominal demonstrative constructions are discussed in the next chapter (§....). () locul cela strimtul place. that narrow. ‘that narrow place’ (DÎ.:I) Polydefiniteness has been gradually lost in the passage to MR, a stage in which the multiple realization of the article may be triggered by last-resort economy considerations (see the discussion of examples ()–() in §...).

2 In present-day Romanian, this pattern of polydefiniteness is productive especially in the southern (Wallachian) dialectal area (Marin ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain



The phenomena discussed here indicate that, besides valuation, there is also a diachronic change in the realization of definiteness. OR allows the spell-out of the definite article on all constituents that undergo definiteness agreement, while MR allows, in the typical case, the realization of the highest copy. The gradual diachronic restriction of definiteness realization on the first [+N] DP-internal constituent is very likely to stem from the ongoing shift from analyticity to syntheticity (Ledgeway : §): one of the effects of this shift is the tendency towards the unique marking of grammatical categories (definiteness, case) on the left edge of DPs (Repina ; Stan ).

.. :         This section focused mostly on the low definite article, a central construction of OR that went extinct in the passage to MR. The existence of low definite article constructions has the following implications: (i) The low definite article confirms that the article starts out as a suffix on the head noun; its realization on a higher adjectival head is the effect of definiteness agreement. (ii) The low definite article is based on long-distance definiteness valuation; the restriction of definiteness valuation to a local goal causes the disappearance of a set of word order options, the surface effect of which is DP-internal word order rigidification. Furthermore, the diachrony of polydefiniteness shows that the OR–MR difference is not limited to the valuation of definiteness, but also affects realization.

. THE PRENOMINAL DOMAIN There is a widespread traditional observation that the DP-internal dependents (e.g. adjectival modifiers, possessive adjectives, and genitives) show a preference for prenominal placement in OR, the transition to MR being characterized by a gradual change in the word order of these constituents, from prenominal to postnominal (see, for example, Frâncu :, , etc.). In the light of a finer-grained typology of adjectives and of genitival–possessive dependents as well as of new empirical findings, this section sets out to show that these traditional remarks need to be nuanced: while genitives and possessive adjectives have indeed come to occur in the postnominal position in MR, the same is not true of adjectives. In MR, qualifying adjectives continue to exhibit variation between prenominal and postnominal placement (which resembles to a certain extent the semantic distinctions between the preand postnominal positions found in other Romance languages: see Ledgeway :–, with references), while relational adjectives, which showed word order variation in OR (especially in the earlier stages), have come to occur obligatorily in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

postnominal position in MR. Movement to the DP-edge, a prerequisite for discontinuous structures (along with residual head finality), is also possible in OR, this phenomenon also giving rise to relevant word order differences between OR and MR.

..    ()- ... The data In contrast to MR, relational3 adjectives (classifying and thematic adjectives) show variation between the prenominal (example ()) and the postnominal position (example ()). Variation characterizes both texts written directly in Romanian and translations, hence it can be considered a syntactic feature of the period (Brăescu and Dragomirescu ). () a. leagea grecească law. Greek ‘the Greek law’ (DÎ.:XCV) b. [DP

Darul împărătesc] mare este gift. imperial big is ‘The imperial gift is big’ (A.:v)

c. învăt¸ătura dumnezeiască teaching. Godly ‘the Godly teaching’ (CC2.:) () a. creştinilorŭ oameni Christian... people ‘to the Christian people’ (CC2.:) b. svânta dumnezeiască mănăstire holy. Godly monastery ‘the holy Godly monastery’ (DÎ.:XXXIX) c. de Iacov zborreasca tremeatere from Jacob synodal. sending ‘from Jacob’s synodal sending’ (CV.–:r) Brăescu and Dragomirescu () and Brăescu () undertake a quantitative analysis of the prenominal–postnominal placement of relational adjectives and conclude that variation, although not present in all the texts examined, was at its peak in the th century and was present throughout the old period; prenominal relational adjectives are still residually attested in the th century (Zafiu :–; see ()). 3 Knittel () employs the label ‘taxonomic’ adjectives, which also covers the relational usage of qualifying adjectives.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain



() supt greceştii episcopi under Greek. bishops ‘under the Greek bishops’ (th century, Țichindeal; Zafiu ) Table ., taken from Brăescu (:), captures this variation. By contrast, qualifying adjectives have continued to exhibit optionality in prenominal (a) vs postnominal (b) placement ever since the earliest texts down to present-day Romanian: () a. cu bună mirezmă with good scent ‘with a good scent’ (Prav.:r) b. mult¸i oameni buni many people good ‘many kind people’ (DÎ.:VII) TABLE . Prenominal–postnominal variation in the placement of relational adjectives Text

Relational adjectives Classifying adjectives

DÎ(1521–1600) PH.1500–10 CCat.1560 CPrav.1560–2 CC1.1567 CM.1567 FT.1571–5 CV.1563–83 CL.1570 CP1.1577 Prav.1581 CC2.1581 PO.1582 FD.1592–604 CS MC.1620 A.1620 MI.~1630 SVI.~1670 SA.1683 Mol.1689 CBuc.1749

Postnominal 95,2% 75% 88,88% 100% 50% 50%

Prenominal 3,84%

64,70% 27,27%

20,58% 63,63%

46,15% 50% 100% 57,14% 78,94% 92% 88,88% 100% 46,15 79,31% 55,10% 100%

15,38% 2,17%

33,33%

Thematic adjectives Postnominal 0,96% 25% 11,11% 50% 16,66% 100% 5,88% 100% 38,46% 17,39%

Prenominal

8,82% 9,09% 10,86%

42,85% 21,05% 8% 11,11% 18,18% 1,72% 12,24%

2,79% 18,96% 30,61%

7,69% 2,04%

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

... Syntactic analysis: Changes in the level and strategy of N(P)-raising An important OR-to-MR change is thus the gradual elimination of the prenominal placement of relational adjectives. The specialization of relational adjectives for the postnominal position took place across Romance (see Bortolotto , with references). However, the word order differences in DPs with relational adjectives attested across the Romance languages and varieties point to the fact that this development did not proceed identically across Romance, but rather that slightly different processes might underlie it. In order to account for this diachronic development, it is necessary to sketch a minimal syntactic analysis of DP-internal adjectives. Due to space limitations, I leave out many details concerning the syntax of DP-internal adjectives (some of these are punctually taken up in the next chapter) and focus here on the major diachronic development presented so far. I adopt Cinque’s () analysis, according to which adjectives merge as specifiers of hierarchically ordered FPs,4 and I corroborate it with the interface account put forward in Cornilescu () and Cornilescu and Nicolae (), which states that the position in which adjectives merge depends on the semantic relation between the adjective and the nominal head. Relational adjectives are subsective (functions that map sets onto subsets), while qualifying adjectives are intersective (and represent the conjunction of predicates).5 Thus, relational adjectives occur closer to the head than qualifying adjectives (Knittel ; Bortolotto ), an intuition that can be formally captured by assuming the hierarchy in (); the FPs in () should be understood in terms of layers or domains (hence the asterisk symbol *), as nouns can be modified by multiple relational and qualifying adjectives. ()

(DP) > FP* (QualAs) > FP* (RelAs) > NP

An important strand of analysis that goes back to the s (Giorgi and Longobardi ; Cinque a, ; Crisma ; Valois ; Bernstein , ; see also Longobardi  on proper names) consists in assuming a uniform base position of DP-internal APs and deriving the word order differences between Romance and Germanic from different NP/N-raising options; witness, for example, the following representation from Cinque (:), in which N undergoes movement to an intermediate functional head (Y) across the adjectival modifier in Romance (see (a)), but not in Germanic (compare (b)):

4

For arguments in favour of merging thematic adjectives also as specifiers of FPs, see Cinque (). For a comprehensive discussion, which includes all classes of adjectives, see Cornilescu and Nicolae (). 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain ()

a. [D… [AP Y

[AP N]]] (Romance)

b. [D… [AP Y

[AP N]]] (Germanic)



This line of analysis readily accounts also for variation in the prenominal vs postnominal placement of adjectives through different N(P)-raising options across Romance. Such variation ranges from high N(P)-movement associated with a reduced number of prenominal adjectival positions in Asturian, Occitan, Neapolitan, Sardinian (Ledgeway b, :), and Barese (Andriani ) to low(er) N(P)-movement correlated with a productive usage of the prenominal position in varieties such as old Neapolitan or present-day Walloon (Ledgeway a; :). Turning now to developments in Romanian, if the line of analysis presented here is corroborated with the insight that noun raising is a Romance innovation whose roots can be found in late Latin (Crisma and Gianollo ; Gianollo ; Ledgeway ), then the OR-to-MR changes in the placement of adjectival modifiers (relational adjectives become obligatorily postnominal, while qualifying adjectives continue to occur both prenominally and postnominally) can be understood by assuming that noun raising across the distinct layers of adjectives is subject to diachronic parametric variation. In the representations that follow, the level of noun raising is represented with the label N; the strategy of noun raising (N0-movement or NP-movement) will be touched upon after the primary analysis of the empirical data. The level of noun raising is subject to more extensive variation in OR, at least the following options being available: (i) The noun remains in situ and is preceded by all adjectives, qualifying and relational, and by other higher DP-internal functional elements (e.g. possessive adjectives) (). () [DP…[FP(QualA) AP [FP(RelA) AP [NP N]] dumnezeiască mănăstire a. sfânta holy. Godly monastery ‘the holy Godly monastery’ (DÎ.:XXXIX) b. înnaintea alor noştri moldoveneşti boiari before . our Moldovan boyars 1 ‘before our Moldovan boyars’ (Doc.Athos .:) (ii) In a structure with two (hierarchically ordered) relational adjectives, the noun raises one notch around the first relational adjective, being thus interposed between the two adjectives, as in (), or undergoes movement across the entire sequence of relational adjectives, as in ().

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

() [DP…[FP(RelA) AP N [FP(RelA) AP [NP N]] pămenteşti suflete drăceşti earthly souls devilish ‘earthly devilish souls’ (CV.–:v; Brăescu ) () [DP (…) N [FP(RelA) AP N [FP(RelA) AP [NP N]] gintul ominescu creştinescu group. human Christian.. ‘the Christian human group’ (CSIV.–:r; Brăescu ) (iii) The noun undergoes raising to the left of the domain of relational adjectives but not higher, being preceded by qualifying adjectives (see ()). () [DP…[FP(QualA) AP N [FP(RelA) AP [NP N]] mare vistiiariu sufletesc big treasure spiritual ‘a great spiritual treasure’ (PO.:) (iv) The noun undergoes raising to the left of both adjectival domains, preceding thus both qualifying and relational adjectives, as in (); co-occurrence with higher functional elements indicates that the noun does not raise as high as D. () [DP (…) N [FP(QualA) AP N [FP(RelA) AP [NP N]] alte ispisoace vechi domneşti other papers old.. royal ‘other old royal papers’ (DocAthos1.:) What happens in the passage from OR to MR is that movement across relational adjectives becomes obligatory, the patterns illustrated in (i) and (ii) above thus becoming extinct. Optionality is reduced to movement across the distinct projections in the higher adjectival field. The OR–MR difference in noun raising is depicted in (); in (b), the movement step that becomes obligatory is underlined. () a. b.

[DP…(N) [FP(QualA) AP (N) [FP(RelA) AP [NP (N)]] [DP…(N) [FP(QualA) AP (N) [FP(RelA) AP [NP N]]

(OR) (MR)

This analysis raises several issues that need to be addressed. The first important issue concerns the identity of the projection (underlined in (b)) to which there is obligatory movement in MR (Cinque’s  Y-projection in ()). Although there are several possible choices in the literature – e.g. Bernstein’s () W(ord)M(arker)P, or Tănase-Dogaru’s () Num(ber)P – I argue for a different solution, capitalizing on recent developments in Phase Theory. Since relational adjectives show a propensity to be closer to the head, as they combine with it via subsection – in Knittel’s () words, they ‘restrict the semantic span of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain



noun to one of its subkinds’ – and even show a tendency to form compounds with it, I hypothesize that relational adjectives and the nominal head represent a denotational unit, the syntactic reflex of which is that they make up the lexical phase of the nominal domain, notated with nP, parallel to the clause-internal vP phase. On the basis of the CP–DP parallelism, several authors have argued for a parallel, bi-phasal analysis of DPs as well (e.g. Cornilescu and Nicolae a for Romanian; Simpson and Syed ; Syed and Simpson  for Bangla). Longobardi and Silvestri (:–) also attribute nominal argumenthood to the nP-domain. Thus, from this perspective, the diachronic change taking place in the passage from OR to MR is that noun raising to the edge of the nominal internal phase nP becomes obligatory. A second important issue, which points to another OR–MR word order difference, concerns the noun-raising strategy through which the attested patterns are derived. Consider again the discussion of () to (): in all these examples, regardless of the position of the head noun, the word order [qualifying adjective > relational adjective] is preserved. The preservation of the base position of adjectives (cf. ()) constitutes strong evidence that it is only the head noun that undergoes raising to the left in the extended nominal projection. Whether we are dealing with a purely head-to-head movement strategy or with an X0-to-Spec type of movement of the sort advocated in the analysis of V-raising (for discussion, see §..) is hard to determine, on the one hand on account of the lack of functional elements such as the clitic adverbial mai in the nominal domain and, on the other hand, because both head movement and phrasal movement are possible types of movement in DPs, in OR as well as in MR, as will be shown here and in the next chapter. Besides, in the analysis of the serialization of relational and qualifying adjectives, Brăescu and Dragomirescu () observe that in the earliest texts the only possible word order is [noun > qualifying adjective > relational adjective] (a) (cf. also ()). This sharply contrasts with the situation in MR, where relational adjectives continue to preserve their closeness to the nominal head, the sequence [noun > relational adjective] preceding the qualifying adjective (see (b)) in what appears to be a type of snowballing phrasal movement. The word order [noun > qualifying adjective > relational adjective] illustrated with the OR example (a) is residually attested, but strongly disfavoured in MR (Popescu-Marin :), the two productive word order patterns being either (b) [noun > relational adjective > qualifying adjective] or (c) [qualifying adjective > noun > relational adjective]. () a.

N > QualA > RelA (OR; residual in MR) (un) veşmentu mohorâtu împărătescu a vestment dull imperial ‘a dull imperial vestment’ (CSV.–:r)

b. (un)

N veşmânt

>

RelA imperial

>

QualA mohorât

(MR)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase c. (un)

RelA mohorât

>

N veşmânt

>

QualA imperial

(MR)

The strong tendency of the two members in the sequence [noun > relational adjective(s)] to cluster together and undergo snowballing movement, illustrated in (b), is an obvious development in the passage from OR to MR. And the fact that this development took place simultaneously with the other word order change that affected relational adjectives (namely their gradual specialization for the postnominal position) cannot be coincidental, but is a rather strong indication that these two developments are related. According to the analysis proposed so far, the obligatory postnominal position of the relational adjectives is derived via obligatory movement of the noun to the left of relational adjectives in the lexical domain nP (see (b)). The hypothesis I advance is that, as soon as movement of the noun to the left edge of the nP becomes obligatory, it is the nP domain as a whole that is targeted by movement. This movement strategy thus ensures that the constituents of the sequence [noun > relational adjective(s)] cluster together, this deriving the word order in (b). The existence of phrasal nP-movement of the sort advocated here is independently supported by the cel-construction of MR: in the cel-construction, relational adjectives are obligatorily pied-piped by the head noun to the left of cel (see (c) and cf. (b) and (d)), in contrast to qualifying adjectives (see (a)), which may freely surface to the right of cel. The contrast between the well-formed word order in (c) and the highly degraded nature of (d) further supports the phrasal nP-movement analysis of the cel-construction, as it shows that relational adjectives cannot be left behind by the noun. (For a detailed analysis of the cel-construction, see §..) () a. veşmântul cel vestment.  ‘the dull vestment’

mohorât dull

b. *veşmântul vestment.

imperial imperial

cel 

c. veşmântul imperial cel vestment. imperial  ‘the dull imperial vestment’

mohorât dull

d. ??veşmântul vestment.

imperial imperial

cel 

mohorât dull

Yet the fact that the word order in (a) [noun > qualifying adjective > relational adjective] is still residually attested in MR should neither be dismissed nor analysed differently from the OR data: in MR too, the noun may move as a head across the distinct adjectival domains. That head movement is still possible in MR DPs is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain



unambiguously shown by the postnominal demonstrative construction, which is discussed in detail in the next chapter (see §.): a strong postnominal demonstrative may be crossed over only by the definite head noun ((a), (b)), all types of adjectives (relational or qualifying) being obligatorily postnominal and preceded by the strong demonstrative (see (b0 )). () a. veşmântul vestment.

(MR)

acesta this.

b. veşmântul acesta mohorât / vestment. this. dull ‘this dull / imperial vestment’ b0 . *veşmântul vestment.

mohorât / dull

imperial imperial

imperial imperial

acesta this.

Thus both N0-movement and nP movement are still available in MR, either as free variants, as in the case of the free ordering of relational and qualifying adjectives in postnominal position (although note that N0-movement is strongly disfavoured in this context), or as obligatory strategies of noun raising, dictated by the nature of the higher functional elements (chapter  will show that the strong demonstrative and the adjectival article cel have a different phrasal status, which derives the different word order options discussed in ()–()). Other Romance languages seem to choose only the nP-raising strategy; for example, the word order [noun > qualifying adjective > relational adjective] (productive in OR, and residually possible in MR, see ()) is deemed ungrammatical in Portuguese (Ptg. *avião antigo presidencial, but avião presidencial antigo ‘old presidential plane’, Brito and Raposo :), Spanish (Sp. *el movimiento firme asambleario, but el movimiento asambleario firme, Demonte :) or Italian (It. *processo veloce chimico, but processo chimico veloce ‘fast chemical process’, Bortolotto :). Similar evidence comes from the behaviour of subcategorized and adjunct PPs in DPs with relational adjectives (see the discussion in Bortolotto :–). It can be concluded that the uniform pan-Romance specialization of relational adjectives is the effect of a change in the noun-raising parameter; variation in the position of relational adjectives in complex DPs results from the choice of different N-raising strategies.

... Summary Two significant changes affect the position and serialization of adjectives in the passage from OR to MR. (i) Movement of the head noun to the left edge of the DP-internal phase nP across relational adjectives becomes mandatory by the end of OR (with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

residues still attested in the th century), this yielding the obligatorily postnominal position of relational adjectives in MR. (ii) Two noun-raising strategies coexist and derive the attested DP-internal word order patterns. N0-raising gradually gives way to nP-raising of the snowballing type, but this is just a preference, since both noun-raising strategies are still independently available in MR DPs.

..   - Bringing into the picture elements that occupy a higher position in the extended nominal projection (demonstratives, possessive adjectives, and pronominal genitives) reveals yet another word order characteristic of OR: pragmatic fronting to the DP-edge. The DP-structure assumed so far should be enriched through inclusion of the projections that host possessive adjectives and pronominal genitives.6 According to Longobardi () and Longobardi and Silvestri (), in Romance languages these elements occupy a high position, the GenS position (the GenS label does not carry any allusion to thematic function, see Longobardi ), occurring to the left of the AP-accommodating FPs but lower than demonstratives (for a detailed discussion of demonstratives, see §.), as summarized in (): ()

(DP) > DemP > GenSP > FP* (QualAs) > FP* (RelAs) > NP

The structure in () is supported by several empirical findings. First, the canonical word order expected from (), Dem > GenSP, is frequent in OR (cf. ()); the difference between (a) and (b) is due to different N(P)-raising options, the noun having raised one notch around the possessive adjective in the second example. () a. făcut-am [DP aceasta make.=.. this. ‘I made this letter of mine’ (DÎ.:X)

a ..

b. scris-am [DP acest zapis write.=.. this. deed ‘I wrote this deed of mine’ (DÎ.:VII)

mea my

[a]l ..

scrisoare] letter meu] my

The base order Dem > GenSP may also be altered, as shown by examples such as (), in which the possessive adjective or the pronominal genitive precedes demonstratives

6 Nominal inflectional genitives and prepositional genitives have been left out. There are word order differences between them and possessive adjectives and pronominal genitives, manifested in OR and in MR, which point to a different syntax; these differences are expected in the system proposed by Longobardi () and Longobardi and Silvestri (), which reserves different positions in the nominal hierarchy for the distinct classes of genitival dependents.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain



(e.g. (a)); cel – which displays both demonstrative and adjectival article features, since its grammaticalization as an adjectival article was not complete in the first phase of OR (§.) – may also be preceded by a possessive adjective or pronominal genitive in (b): () a. robului tău cela credinciosulŭ sevant.. your that. faithful. ‘to that faithful servant of yours’ (CC2.:) b. pune [DP măna ta cea dereaptă] pre capul cestuia put.. hand. your /that right on head. this.. ‘put your right hand on this one’s head’ (PO.:) The problem raised by examples such as () is how possessive adjectives or pronominal genitives front across the demonstratives: do they raise by themselves, or are they pied-piped by the head noun under phrasal (snowball) movement? There are several indications that it is more economical to derive the word order [possessive adjective/pronominal genitive > demonstrative] by assuming phrasal movement of the sequence [definite noun + possessive adjective/pronominal genitive] from an intermediary position like that in (b) rather than by assuming that the definite NP and the possessive adjective independently undergo raising across the demonstrative. First, an exhaustive investigation of the text collected in DÎ and of CC2. reveals that the [GenS > Dem] word order occurs only in the presence of a definite noun to their left; thus, whenever N(P)-raising across the demonstrative does not take place, the base order [Dem > GenS] is preserved. Second, phrasal movement of the type advocated here, with the N-head piedpiping another constituent across a demonstrative, is a productive strategy of OR () (see §... for details): () a. sfântul loc acesta sacred. place this. ‘this sacred place’ (BB.:; Stan b) b. sfânta beseareca aceasta sacred. church. this.s ‘this sacred church’ (CL.:r) One productive strategy of accessing the DP-edge is thus phrasal movement across demonstratives. Although in examples ()–() the moved constituent includes the head noun, examples such as () reveal that edge-fronting does not necessarily target the phrase that contains the head noun, but rather any phrasal constituent with a marked pragmatic interpretation; witness the coordinated APs in (), which occur to the left of an adnominal demonstrative:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

() svânta şi dumnedzăiasca aceaia taină saint. and godly. that. sacrament ‘that holy and godly sacrament’ (ŞT.: ) As will be shown in the next chapter (see §.), one of the effects of the syntactic specialization of demonstratives is that phrasal movement across demonstratives becomes unavailable (only N0-movement is possible in MR), hence structures such as (a), (), and () disappear, giving way to the postnominal demonstrative construction. Moving downwards on the functional hierarchy established in (), the set of examples in ()–() shows that definite adjectives (qualifying, quantificational, and relational) may precede possessive adjectives and pronominal genitives.7 () a. la dragul meu suflet at dear. my soul ‘at my dear soul’ (A.:v) b. a trimis pe [DP Preasfântul .. send.  all-holy. ‘he sent his all-holy spirit’ (DDL.:)

Său his

Duh] spirit

c. multa a Ta lungă-răbdare a.lot.. .. your./. long-patience ‘your long patience’ (SVI.~: v) () cu dumnedzeiasca a ta tărie with godly. .. your power ‘with your godly strength’ (CM.:v) However, several diachronic considerations suggest that XP-raising across GenSPs should not be analysed in exactly the same manner as XP-raising across demonstratives. While examples such as () are no longer available (for independent reasons discussed in the previous section: N-movement to the nP-edge determines the

7 It not clear whether al-insertion in front of the possessive adjective or pronominal genitive is relevant in this context, given the optional presence of al to the right of the definite article in the earliest texts (see the discussion in §., examples ()–()). The optionality shown in examples (i)–(ii), which are culled from the same OR text, is a prima facie indication that al-insertion does not affect the DP-internal word order of possessive adjectives or pronominal genitives (cf. also ()–() in the main text).

(i) milosârdia a [dulcelui alŭ mercy. .. kind.. .. ‘your kind father’s mercy’ (CC2.:) (ii) milostea a [sfântului tău duhŭ] grace. .. holy. your spirit ‘your holy spirit’s grace’ (CC2.:)

tău părinte] your father

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

The prenominal domain



displacement of the entire [N + relational adjective] sequence, disallowing the movement of relational adjectives themselves), structures like (), in which definite qualifying adjectives precede the possessive constituent in GenSP, are still available and productive in the modern (and contemporary) stage of Romanian. This state of affairs strongly contrasts with that of adnominal demonstratives: examples such as () (and ()) are completely ungrammatical in MR, which indicates that XP-movement across demonstratives is unavailable in MR. Thus there is a relevant difference between demonstratives on the one hand and possessive adjectives or pronominal genitives on the other: in MR, the latter do not give rise to blocking effects of sort incurred by the former. If the contrast in () is also taken into account, then the functional hierarchy established in () should be slightly adjusted not by altering the order of the projections, but rather by allowing for the existence of a syntactic space in between DemP and GenSP; this syntactic space accommodates those constituents that undergo movement across GenSP but not higher, for example the head noun that undergoes movement across the possessive adjective in (b). Thus, while in examples like () it is clear that the prenominal adjective occupies a DP-edge position, having moved across the demonstrative, the same is not true of examples like (), in which definite adjectives precede a constituent in GenSP. From this perspective, examples such as () may be taken to represent Pambiguous strings, compatible with two syntactic structures. Either (i) the definite adjective has moved to the DP-edge (i) (just like the definite adjective that precedes the demonstrative in ()); or (ii) the definite adjective has moved one notch across the possessive in GenSP, but not higher (see (ii)) – just like the noun in (b). () dragul dear.

meu my

suflet (=(a)) soul

i. AP > D > AP > GenSP > AP > NP dragul meu suflet > NP ii. DP > AP > GenSP > AP dragul meu suflet There is supplementary evidence supporting the hypothesis that () is compatible with two syntactic derivations. To begin with, the availability of the syntactic derivation proposed in (ii) is supported by the fact that movement of definite nouns or adjective to (Spec,)D is not compulsory in OR (or in MR); with particular reference to OR, the low definite article, analysed in detail in §.., clearly shows that definiteness valuation is resolved via Agree with D0, not via movement of the definite constituent to (Spec,)D. On the other hand, besides the existence of structures like (), where the edge position of definite adjectives is clear, the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

derivation in (i) is supported by the availability of discontinuous structures in OR (analysed in detail in §.); as extensively shown by Ledgeway (, , a, in press a), constituents may be extracted from their associated DP only through the DP-edge (i.e. the DP-edge is the escape hatch, Szabolcsi ) but not otherwise. The change that has taken place in the passage from OR to MR is that structure (i) becomes unavailable. Hence, in MR, the word order in () reflects only the structure in (ii): under this derivation, the adjective displaced across the possessive adjective does not reach the DP-edge. A reflex of this change is the gradual emergence of an alternative strategy of accessing the DP-edge: the adjectival article construction (), based on the grammaticalized distal demonstrative cel. This construction reconfigures the left edge of the DP: as there are two distinct definite articles (the suffixal definite article and the free-standing article cel), the adjectival article construction is best analysed as involving a split-DP structure, with an outer DP-layer and an inner DP-layer; therefore it allows the projection of a DP-left periphery in which pragmatically salient constituents are directly merged, not fronted8 (see §.). This new construction, gaining ground especially after , gives rise to a novel strategy of throwing into prominence pragmatically salient constituents, thus representing an alternative for the movement-based strategy. () pre fiiul tău cel iubit  son. your  beloved ‘(take) your beloved son’ (PI.~:r) The gradual encroachment of the adjectival article construction on the function traditionally reserved to edge-fronting thus contributes to the gradual restriction in the accessibility of the DP-edge. To sum up, in the passage from OR to MR the accessibility of the DP-edge via movement becomes gradually constrained, and alternative strategies of DP-internal pragmatic marking gradually develop. Alongside the full elimination of head-final structures (§..), the gradual disappearance of fronting to the DP-edge accounts not only for DP-internal word order changes, but also for the disappearance of discontinuous DPs (discussed in §.), since a prerequisite for deriving a discontinuous DP is fronting to the edge of the DP (see §..).

8 The issue of whether pragmatically salient constituents access the left periphery via movement or merger in the adjectival article construction is discussed in detail in §...; evidence coming from the acceptable range of post-cel modifiers, and also other phenomena (e.g. the absence of definiteness agreement on the post-cel adjective, ellipsis), strongly favour the direct merger analysis first put forward by Cornilescu ().

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



.. :     The observed differences between OR and MR in the structure of the prenominal domain have been shown to follow from two diachronic developments: (i) changes in the level of N(P)-movement: raising to the edge of the nP-domain becomes obligatory; this has effects both on the position of the head noun and on other types of movement; (ii) a gradual restriction in the access to the DP-edge. An important development is the emergence and consolidation of the adjectival article construction (the steps of which are documented in detail in §.), which allowed for finer-grained DP-internal pragmatic distinctions. Consider the examples in (), both available and productive in MR: tău your

fiu son

b. fiul tău son. your ‘your dear son’

cel 

() a. dragul dear.

drag dear

Despite the fact that the adjective occupies a higher position than its base position in both cases, the pragmatic interpretations of these DPs (as well as their derivations) are different. In the first example, the definite adjective undergoes movement to a higher position across the possessive adjective; it expresses the speaker’s subjective evaluation, a value typical of Romance prenominal adjectives. By contrast, in the celconstruction, the adjective directly merges in the DP left periphery (see §...). Its interpretation is also pragmatically marked, but the preferred reading is not speaker subjective evaluation; rather, the peripheral adjective expresses a contextually identifying property of the head noun, i.e. an identifying, contrastive topic reading (see §... for a full account of the interpretation of the adjectival article construction).

. DISCONTINUOUS STRUCTURES AND THE SYNTAX OF DEFINITENESS The goal of this section is to discuss syntactic discontinuity in OR. I focus mostly on discontinuous DPs and APs but review, for completeness, the entire array of discontinuous structures attested in OR. Discontinuous structures are a well-known syntactic characteristic of Latin (see Ledgeway : §§..., ..., .. with references, , a), relics of which are still found in old and medieval Romance varieties (e.g. Giusti ; Poletto ; Iovino ; Ledgeway a), including OR (Nicolae , with references).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

OR provides an important (missing) link for the correct syntactic analysis of discontinuous structures. There are currently two main approaches to syntactic discontinuity and left-branch extraction. On the one hand, authors like Bošković (, ) and Bošković and Gajewski () distinguish between NP-languages (e.g. Latin) and DP-languages (e.g. Romance) and argue that syntactic discontinuity is present only the former type. Thus in NP-languages the DP-layer is absent, hence extraction from nominal expressions is permitted, as the barrierhood effect instantiated by the DP layer is absent. By contrast, in DP-languages nominal expressions are DPs, and the projection of the DP-layer and the lexicalization of D0 block movement to the DP-edge, which feeds further extraction of DP-internal material to the clausal superstructure. On the other hand, Ledgeway (, , a, in press a) relates the availability of edge-fronting and discontinuous structures to the head-directionality parameter, arguing that syntactic discontinuity of the hyperbaton type is permitted only under a head-final parametric setting. OR confirms and strengthens Ledgeway’s line of analysis: OR, a language with a full-fledged article system, possesses both discontinuous structures and residual head-final structures. Furthermore, extraction can proceed from definite DPs. This interesting conundrum, which finds its solution in the analysis of definiteness outlined so far (§.), represents direct empirical evidence against the NP-/DPparameter line of analysis. The section is structured as follows: after presenting the empirical material (the typology of discontinuous structures and residual head-final structures) in the first two subsections, I turn to the syntactic analysis of discontinuous nominal (and adjectival) expressions.

..     OR possesses a rich array of discontinuous structures, some of which fall under the traditional category of hyperbaton; these are the discontinuous DPs and APs. Adopting a broader definition of syntactic discontinuity, two other types of discontinuous structures have been identified in the textual material of OR: adjunction of scrambled adverbials to nominal expressions and Coordinate Structure Constraint violations. It should be stressed from the outset that discontinuous structures do not have a high frequency in OR. However, they are attested in a representative sample of nontranslated texts and translations, a fact that indicates that they are neither accidental nor a mere stylistic–rhetorical device that imitates a foreign textual tradition (see Moldovanu , with reference to Prince Dimitrie Cantemir’s writings, which are heavily influenced by Latin and Byzantine textual models). Before proceeding to the presentation of the data, it is important to mention that the structural representations in the examples that follow reflect the constituent structure of the discontinuous structures, not their derivational history, which will be taken up in §...

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



The most widespread pattern of discontinuity is represented by discontinuous DPs of different syntactic types. To begin with, extraction can proceed from definite DPs; the definite determiner may be the definite article itself, as in (), or a different definite determiner, e.g. a demonstrative, as in (): () a. [dumnezăii voştri ti], cât¸i avet¸i, gods. your. how.many have... ‘your Greek gods, as many as you have’ (A.:r)

[elineşti]i Greek

b. [A duhului svântu]i dă-ne [DP ti darurile] . spirt.. holy give..=.. gifts.. ‘Give us the gifts of the holy spirit’ (FT.–:r) c. noao, creştinilorŭ, Hristosŭ, mântuitoriulŭ nostru, a sa us. Christians.. Christ saviour. our .. his bunăvestire, [sfânta evanghelie ti] datu-o-au annunciation holy. gospel give.=...=.. [a patru evanghelisti]i . four evangelists ‘Christ our saviour gave us the Christians his annunciation, the holy gospel of the four evangelists’ (CC2.:) () să ne dea măriia lui a ştirea ˘. .. give.. highness. his . know. [PP pre [cestu om ti]] ce l-am through this man who ...=.. trimes [al nostru]i send. .. our ‘his highness should let us know through this man of ours whom we sent’ (DÎ.:XLIV) Extraction may also proceed from bare nominal expressions: () a. [Pace ti] vor avea, [sufletească]i peace .. have. spiritual ‘they will have spiritual peace’ (CC1.:v) [veselie ti] b. Iacă, creştine, [ce mare]i avem behold Christian. what big have.. joy noi înr Domnezeu we in God. ‘Behold, Christian, what big joy we have in God’ (FT.–:r) c. iubi-va [dzile ti] a vedea [bunre]i? love.=.. days . see. good ‘would he love to see good days?’ (PH.–:r)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase d. au cu totul îi silesc [cu elinească ti]  entirely ... force.. with Greek.. a sluji Liturghie [limbă]i? . officiate. Mass language ‘are they entirely forcing them to officiate the mass in the Greek language?’ (DDL.:)

Rare examples such as () show that constituents may even undergo super-raising to the matrix clause across an embedded verb; the contrastive interpretation of the displaced numeral is straightforward in this example. () iată [trei]i, spre a sufletului dulce gustare, behold three for .. soul.. sweet tasting ¸t i să întind [ti meşcioare] .. .. lay.. meals ‘Behold three meals, they are laid for your soul’s sweet delight’ (CD.:Vv) Discontinuous APs are also attested in OR (Brăescu, Dragomirescu, and Nicolae ); in the examples in () the adjectival head is separated from its complement by intervening material: () a. [poftitoriu ti] mai multe decât atâtea [a eager more many than so.much . ‘eager to know more than this’ (CIst.–:v)

şti]i know.

b. Bet¸işor scurticel, carile [obiciuit¸i ti] sint împărat¸ii small.stick short which accustomed.. are emperors [în mână a-l ¸t inea]i in hand .=... keep. ‘A small, short stick which emperors are accustomed to keeping in their hand’ (CII.~:XVII) DP-internally, the adjectival head may scramble to the DP-edge, leaving its complement behind (see ()): () Şi aşea [DP [mântuit¸i ti] boierii şi ¸t ara and like.this saved.. boyars. and country. [de domniia lui Alexandru vodă Iliiaş]i] of reign.  Alexandru vodă Iliaş ‘And thus the boyars and the country were saved of voivod Alexandru Iliaş’s reign’ (CLM.–:v) Degree markers, too, display a very interesting behaviour.9 First, they can either scramble to the DP-edge, as in (), or occur postadjectivally, as in (). In the latter 9 The degree words also circulate as freestanding adverbs in the th-th centuries (see (i)–(ii)), and only subsequently fully grammaticalize and restrict their usage to degree marking only.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



case, it is not entirely clear whether the adjectival head scrambled out of the associated AP, leaving the degree marker behind, or only underwent movement to the extended AP-edge,10 across the degree marker, but still remaining within the limits of the extended AP. () a. Acest păgân [DP maii om [ti bun]] this pagan more man good ‘This pagan was a better man’ (CC1.:r)

au ..

fost be.

b. cu [DP preai mâncare [ti multă]] with too food much ‘with too much food’ (CC1.:v) c. veni-vor afară cu [DP preai marhă [ti multă]] come.=.. outside with too merchandise much ‘they will come outside with too much merchandise’ (PO.:) () a. era amu bogatŭ foarte was now rich very 2 ‘he was very rich’ (CC .:) b. ghizdavă la fat¸ă foarte beautiful.. at face very ‘with a very beautiful face (lit. very beautiful at face)’ (BB.:) c. mare foarte groapă făcând big very pit making ‘making a very big pit’ (CIst.–:v) Second, degree markers may scramble from their associate AP ()11 and raise to the clausal left periphery:

(i) Mai iubit-ai rreul decât bunrătatea more love.=.. malice. than kindness ‘you loved malice more than kindness’ (PH.–:r) (ii) nu foarte le ascultă not very ... listen... ‘they don’t listen to them too intensively’ (CC2.:) However, in the examples discussed in the main text, it is clear that these adverbials operate on the degree variable of adjectives, thus having an AP-internal base generation position. 10 Another possible analysis of the examples in () is AP movement to the specifier of the AvP whose head is lexicalized by the degree marker (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.). P-ambiguity is once again at work. 11 So do AvP-internal degree markers, witness (i)–(ii):

[ti bine] (i) maii nemeri-vrem more hit.=.. well ‘we will hit it better’ (CPr.:) (ii) Şi foartei întreba [ti bine] Irodŭ and very asked well Herod ‘and Herod asked very well’ (CC2.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

() a. foartei i-e [ti drag] very ..=is dear.. ‘he is very dear to him/her’ (PO.:) b. acum foartei se strângu turci [ ti mult¸i] now very .. gather Turks many.. ‘very many Turks are gathering now’ (DÎ.:XVIII) A particular type of syntactic discontinuity, which does not fall under the traditional label of hyperbaton, is the adjunction of scrambled adverbials (example ()) and, very rarely, conjunctions (example ()) to nominal constituents: () a. [cinci amu bărbat¸i] ai avut five now men .. have. ‘you had five husbands until now’ (CC1.:v) b. [războiul atuncea a tătarâlor cu leşii] war. then . Tartars.. with Poles.. au fostŭ aşea .. be. like.this ‘then the war of the Tartars with the Poles was like this’ (CLM.–:r) () [Aceaste dară doaă steale] these but two stars ‘But these two stars’ (CD.:r) There are also a few instances in which Ross’s (:–) Coordinate Structure Constraint is violated: () a. nu putet¸i [lu Dumnezeu]i sluji [ti şi lu Mamon] not can...  God serve. and  Mammon ‘you cannot serve God and Mammon’ (CC1.:v) b. [Pre fiiul tău]i l-au mâncat pre drum  son. your ...=.. eat. on road un leu, [ti şi pre mult¸i oameni] a lion and  many people ‘On the road a lion ate your son and many people’ (Sind.:v) c. [optŭzeci ti] de ai [şi patru]i eighty of years and four ‘eighty four years’ (CC2.:) It is highly plausible that the two last types of discontinuous structures are not syntactically related to the first two, and their precise formal analysis remains to be established through future research. However, I believe that it is important to record

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



them here: on the one hand, they instantiate patterns that deviate from the expected constituency rules; on the other hand, they represent structures specific of OR, no longer grammatical in MR. Another issue that needs to be addressed in future research is that of the distribution of the different types of discontinuous structures, both from a qualitative and from a quantitative perspective. Which type of discontinuous structures occurs more frequently? Are there differences in the frequency of the distinct types of discontinuous DPs (or APs)? What is the textual distribution of discontinuous DPs (or APs)? And so on. Except for studies devoted to a particular author (e.g. Moldovanu  on Prince Dimitrie Catemir’s writings) or to a (set of ) particular construction(s) (e.g. Brăescu, Dragomirescu, and Nicolae  on discontinuous and head-final APs), and except for punctual observations in general descriptions of the history of the Romanian language, syntactic discontinuity has not been addressed in detail in Romanian scholarship.

..          Pursuing the hypothesis that the existence of discontinuous structures is tightly related to the existence of head-final structures (see §.. for details), this subsection sets out to present the empirical material indicating that certain word order options of OR DPs and APs are compatible with a head-final syntactic analysis. Examples such as (), in which arguments of nouns and adjectives precede their associated head, are P-ambiguous, as it is not clear whether the pre-head position of the arguments is the result of pragmatic edge-fronting or of roll-up movement (see Ledgeway :–, a on ambiguities of this type), of base generation of prehead constituents, or even of low N(P)-raising for (a): () a. de Dumnedzău iubitori of God lovers ‘lovers of God’ (MI.~.II:r) b. fata [AP [DP a lu Dumnezeu] girl. ..  God ‘the girl who gave birth to God’ (CC2.: )

născătoare] give-birth.

Yet there is a familiar syntactic restriction on complex/heavy constituents found on the left branch (Zwarts , apud Cinque ). This restriction is intimately connected to Williams’ () ban on post-head material in prenominal modifiers (e.g. Engl. *the proud of his children man), dubbed the Head-Final Filter (see Sheehan  for a recent discussion), and ultimately to the Final-over-Final Constraint/Condition (FOFC) (Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts ). The examples that follow show that in OR heavy constituents may directly precede their associated head; in accordance with the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

syntactic diagnostics invoked above, this word order is derived through the movement of these dependents across their associated head. This movement operation may be either roll-up movement (i.e. head finality) or fronting to the edge of the extended projection. This ambiguity is discussed in more detail the next section. According to Ledgeway (:–), the progressive reversal of the headdirectionality parameter from a head-final setting (archaic Latin) to a head-initial setting (late Latin; Romance) observed FOFC (see Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts , with references): the progressive establishment of a head-initial grammar diachronically proceeded top-down, from the highest functional projections (the CP and the PP), percolating to the hierarchically inferior portions of the extended projections (CP > IP > VP // PP > DP > NP). The opposite direction of change, bottom-up, would incur FOFC violations as it systematically produces illicit structures with head-final categories that dominate head-initial categories.12 This scenario of change is confirmed by the diachrony of Latin, and also has an important implication for the analysis of old Romance varieties: it predicts that, owing to their low position in the hierarchy of their extended projection, nominal and adjectival categories (lexical categories in general) are the last ones to be affected by change in the head-directionality parameter. Therefore the examples that follow are compatible with a head-final (roll-up movement) analysis alongside a fronting to the edge analysis, P-ambiguity being once again at work. The remainder of this section introduces the empirical data, which are put into a broader perspective in the next section. The examples in () richly illustrate the presence of heavy APs before the nominal head all throughout OR: () a. şi [DP [AP de tot¸i lăudat¸i] apostoli] and by all praised apostles ‘and the apostles praised by all’ (CL.:r) b. cătră [DP [AP făcătoriulŭ de viat¸ă] Domnŭ] towards maker. of life God 2 ‘towards the life-making God’ (CC .:) c. [DP [ConjP [AP bunului] şi [AP viat¸ă făcătoriului]] Tău Duh] kind.. and life giving.. your spirit ‘to your kind and life giving spirit’ (DDL.:) 12

Assuming a roll-up movement analysis of head-final structures (see §..), the FOFC-violating structure is depicted in (i):

∗

(i)

XP X’

YP Y0

ZP

X0

tYP

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



d. [DP a mea [AP beteagă de minte] nebunie] .. my crippled of mind madness ‘my mind-crippling madness’ (SVI.~:r) e. [DP [AP ascut¸itele la audzire] urechi] keen... at hearing ears ‘the keen ears’ (CII.~:) f. [DP [AP

iubitorii de Hristos] creştini] lover. of Christ Christians ‘the Christ-loving Christians’ (AAM.:r) milostivului] şi merciful.. and [AP dătătoriului de bunătăt¸i]] Dumnezeu] giver.. of good-things God ‘to merciful God, giver of good things God’ (ACP.:r)

g. [DP

[ConjP [AP

h. Preacista dela mănăstirea Goliia şi dela Sfânta Vineri, virgin. from monastery Golia and from saint. Friday [DP [AP făcătoare de minuni] icoane] maker of miracles icons ‘the Virgins from Golia Monastery and from Saint Friday Monastery, miracle-making icons’ (GCond.:) i. [DP

a [AP iubitorilor de Dumnezeu] .. loving.. of God ‘of the God-loving bishops’ (Prav.:)

episcopi] bishops

Consider also the sets of examples that follow: not only participial and deverbal adjectives ((), ()) may take pre-head complements, but also non-derived ones, as can be seen in (). () a. la [DP acest [CoordP [AP cinstit] şi [AP [PP de Dumnezeu] at this honoured and by God. dăruit]] scaun] given chair. ‘at this honoured and by God given chair (=throne)’ (Doc.Athos2.:) b. [AP [PP de stârvurile împut¸ite] totdeauna însătate şi of carcasses. putrid always thirsty and nesăturate] sint un-satiated are ‘and they are always thirsty and hungry for putrid carcasses’ (CII.~:–)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

() a. [DP

[AP [PP

de-oameni]- iubitoriu] Domnulŭ of-peopleloving God ‘the people-loving God’ (CC2.:)

b. [DP

un om [AP [PP de oşti] pururea poftitoriŭ]] a man of armies always desirous ‘a man always desirous of armies’ (CLM.:v)

c. [DP [ConjP [AP Cinstite] şi [AP [PP de trudă] iubitoriule]]] cetitoriu] honest. and of work loving. reader ‘honest and hard-working reader’ (CD.:IVv) da] vreadnic] nefiind () a. [AP [VP la pret¸ pret¸uire a at price valuing . give. worthy -be. ‘not being worthy of treasuring the price’ (CD.:IVr) b. [AP [PP de toată probozirea] vreadnic să fiu] of all.. admonition. worthy.. ˘. be. ‘I should be worthy of all admonition’ (CII.~:II) c. un mielŭ la hire, nelacom, [AP [DP nemăruia] rău] a lamb at character un-greedy nobody. mean ‘a kind (lit. lamb in spirit), generous man, mean to no one’ (CLM.:v) To sum up, although they are not very frequent, structures in which a complex constituent precedes its nominal or adjectival head are attested throughout OR.

..  :    The data presented so far are sufficient for a formal analysis of discontinuous structures. Recall that discontinuous DPs represent the most complex type, discontinuous APs being subjected to a simpler similar analysis. To begin with, as I have insistently pointed out, the data analysed in §.. represent an important piece of evidence against an analysis of discontinuous structures along the lines of Bošković’s (, ) and Bošković and Gajewski’s () NP-/DP-parameter. On the one hand, discontinuous DPs are available in OR, a language with a full-fledged article system; on the other, constituents may be extracted even from definite DPs with a definite article (cf. ()), an empirical fact that, as will be shown below, is of crucial importance for the general analysis of discontinuous structures (similar facts have been reported for ancient Greek; see Devine and Stephens ). Let us now flesh out the account of discontinuous structures proposed by Ledgeway (, , a, in press a), and then examine the relevance of the data of OR and of the transition from OR to MR for the general analysis of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



discontinuous structures. According to Ledgeway’s account, the possibility of fronting DP-internal constituents to the DP-edge and their further extraction to the clausal superstructure – syntactic discontinuity – is tightly related to the headfinal setting of the head-directionality parameter. Movement to the DP-edge is a prerequisite for further extraction from the DP, an observation that goes back at least to Szabolcsi (). There is an observed complementarity between the gradual decline of edge-fronting (and further extraction from DPs) in Romance and the progressive development of articles lexicalizing the D-head; however, the two phenomena are not directly related but rather represent an epiphenomenon, ultimately the reflex of the change in the head-directionality parameter, from consistent head-final (Indo-European and archaic Latin) to consistent head-initial (Romance). Assuming Kayne’s () antisymmetric model, head-final structures are derived from corresponding head-initial structures (see (a)) by moving the complement across the head to a derived inner specifier (i.e. through roll-up movement; see (b)). This line of analysis is also taken up by Ledgeway (:–). ()

a.

XP

b.

Spec (Subject)

X’ X0

XP Spec (Subject)

Compl Object

X’ Spec Object roll-up

X’ X0

Compl Object

Now, assuming, as usual, that movement is subject to locality conditions, Ledgeway (a) proposes that antilocality (namely the ban on too local movement)13 is ‘not a blanket constraint on all instances of local movement, but should be parameterized across languages’; more precisely, antilocality is suspended in head-final languages or configurations, as the movement operation that accounts for the observed variation (roll-up movement) in the surface variation with respect to the head is antilocal par excellence, inasmuch as it presupposes the movement of a constituent to a derived inner specifier of its head.

As remarked by Ledgeway (in press a), what all accounts of antilocality (e.g. Bošković ; Saito and Murasugi ; Abels ; Grohmann ) have in common is the intuition that movement must cross at least one (phasal) XP boundary. 13

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

The suspension of antilocality accounts for the derivation of several types of structures available to OR. First, it accounts for structures in which adjectival modifiers are displaced to the DP-edge, as in () (= ()). () svânta şi dumnedzăiasca aceaia taină saint. and godly... that. sacrament ‘that holy and godly sacrament’ (ŞT.: ) The movement of adjectival constituents to the DP-edge feeds further fronting of adjectival modifiers to the clausal superstructure, giving rise to discontinuous structures like (): () toată acmu [AP lumasca] să lepădăm [DP grije] all now worldly. ˘. hurl.. care ‘let us now shun all worldly cares’ (DDL.:) The simplified derivation of () is depicted in (). Several details should be mentioned: (i) Spec,DP serves as an escape hatch; (ii) since extraction is constrained by the Phase Impenetrability Condition, AP-movement proceeds through Spec,vP prior to reaching the clausal left periphery; these steps are depicted in (i); (iii) the final landing site of the displaced AP is a CP-left peripheral position (Spec,FocP/Spec, ToP), as shown by the fact that it surfaces to the left of the subjunctive complementizer să (which occupies Fin0, cf. §..); this step is depicted in (ii) (in order to avoid an overly complicated representation, V-raising is signalled only representationally, not derivationally, and definiteness agreement has not been signalled). ()

(i)

vP AP lumasca

v’ V+v lepădăm

VP V

DP

AP lumasca

D’ D AP lumasca

FP F’ F

NP grije

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness

(ii)



FocP/TopP AP lumasca

Foc’/Top’ Foc/Top

FinP IP

Fin să I lepădăm

vP AP lumasca

v’ (…) NP grije

The derivation of other patterns, which involve the fronting of nominal dependents of other types – e.g. genitival dependents, as in () = (b) – proceeds similarly, the DP-edge serving as an escape hatch for extraction to the clausal left periphery. () [A duhului svântu]i dă-ne . spirt.. holy give..=.. [DP [a duhului svântu]i darurile] gifts.. ‘Give us the gifts of the holy spirit’ (FT.–:r) A reverse pattern of syntactic discontinuity is also attested: nominal fronting (Ledgeway :–). Under nominal fronting, it is the noun that undergoes fronting to the clausal superstructure, leaving its dependents behind. Although there are situations in which what appears to move is the head noun (see () =(a)), the existence of structures like () = (c), in which a sequence made up of the head noun plus an adjectival modifier is extracted to the clausal left periphery, confirms that what actually moves is a phrasal constituent. () [Pace]i vor avea, [DP [pace]i sufletească [pace]i] peace .. have. spiritual ‘they will have spiritual peace’ (CC1.:v) () noao, us.

creştinilorŭ, Hristosŭ, mântuitoriulŭ nostru, a sa Christians.. Christ saviour. our .. his

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase bunăvestire, [sfânta evanghelie]i datu-o-au annunciation holy. gospel give.=...=.. [[sfânta evanghelie]i [a patru evanghelisti]] . four evangelists ‘Christ our saviour gave us the Christians his annunciation, the holy gospel of the four evangelists’ (CC2.:)

Note that it is also possible to derive these patterns by first extracting nominal dependents from the DP, and subsequently move the DP that contains the trace of the extracted constituents (remnant movement) to the clausal left periphery. However, it has been shown in §.. that the DP-edge is accessible to a wide selection of constituents, including phrasal sequences containing the nominal head, hence a simpler derivation of the sort advocated above takes precedence over a more complex one. Furthermore, in (), it is the sequence sfânta evanghelie (‘holy gospel’) that is thrown into prominence (as a contrastive topic), not the remaining genitival dependent a patru evanghelisti (‘of the four evangelists’); this interpretation further supports the hypothesis that the constituent undergoing movement to the DP-edge before extraction to the clausal left periphery is sfânta evanghelie, not a patru evanghelisti. As hinted above, discontinuous APs (see () = ()) are derived in the same manner as discontinuous DPs, through the edge of the extended adjectival phrase, which is accessible for AP-internal fronting, as shown by the existence of post-head degree markers (see () = (b)) as well as of other word order patterns (see §..). [ghizdavă la fat¸ă]i foarte [ghizdavă la fat¸ă]i] beautiful.. at face very ‘with a very beautiful face (lit. very beautiful at face)’ (BB.:)

() [AP

() Şi aşea [DP [mântuit¸i]i boierii şi ¸t ara and like.this saved.. boyars. and country. [AP [mântuit¸i]i de domniia lui Alexandru vodă Iliiaş]i] of reign.  Alexandru vodă Iliaş ‘And thus the boyars and the country were saved of voivod Alexandru Iliaş’s reign’ (CLM.–:v) To sum up, the different types of discontinuous DPs and APs are derived by first moving the displaced constituent to the left edge of its extended projection (Spec,DP and Spec,AP respectively), and then extracting it to the clausal or nominal superstructure. Before ending this section, it is incumbent upon me to answer two questions: (i) What is the relevance of discontinuous definite DPs? (ii) Why have edge-fronting and discontinuous DPs disappeared in the passage from OR to MR?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Discontinuous structures and the syntax of definiteness



(i) As shown in the previous sections, fronting to the edge of DPs and extraction from definite DPs is possible in OR. This distribution of definiteness goes against previous findings for the early Romance languages. For example, with reference to old Italian (i.e. Tuscan), Poletto (:) remarks that ‘when an XP is preposed in front of N, the N never has a definite determiner’. Furthermore, the relation between the profusion of definite articles and the impossibility to extract from DPs led some of the authors cited above to propose that there is a parametric division between NP-languages and DP-languages, one of the effects of this being the unavailability of discontinuous DPs in DP-languages. Yet OR shows not only that fronting to the edge of DPs and extraction from DPs is possible in a DP-language, but also that these two phenomena are even available in definite DPs (see also Devine and Stephens :– for ancient Greek). It thus appears that the Romanian definite article does not produce the blocking effects observed in other languages. The hypothesis I advance to account for this particular behaviour of the Romanian definite article capitalizes on the analysis of definiteness valuation put forward in §. above: in OR and MR, the valuation of the [idef] feature hosted by the D0-head in DPs with a suffixal definite article is ensured by Agree between a constituent that bears the definite article (the head noun or a prenominal adjective) and the D0-head. In addition, the distributional evidence reviewed in the previous sections (the low definite article in particular, see §..) has revealed that Agree is sufficient to ensure definiteness valuation and that the definiteness-bearing constituent need not move to D0/Spec,DP. The outcome of this definiteness valuation strategy is that neither D0 nor Spec,DP are ever overtly lexicalized.14 The fact that D0 is not filled allows Spec, DP to function as a landing site for fronting to the DP-edge and as an escape hatch for further extraction from DPs (Szabolcsi ). By contrast, the merger of a freestanding definite article in other Romance languages blocks movement to Spec, DP, most probably due to a constraint of the Generalized Doubly Filled COMP Filter type (Koopman ), which prevents the simultaneous lexicalization of the specifier and of the head of maximal projections. To conclude, the fact that the relation between D0 and the definite article is mediated by Agree accounts for the fact that Spec,DP may function as a landing site for edge-fronting and as an escape hatch feeding syntactic discontinuity. Furthermore, OR discontinuous definite DPs confirm Ledgeway’s (a) hypothesis that syntactic discontinuity of the hyperbaton type is not directly related to the development of definite articles. 14 Interestingly, neither fronting to the edge of DPs nor discontinuous DPs are attested with DPs headed by indefinite articles (which are freestanding determiners in Romanian). This confirms that overt lexicalization of D0 blocks access to Spec,DP. By contrast, extraction from definite DPs with demonstrative determiners is possible very rarely (cf. example ()). The next chapter (§.) shows that strong demonstratives do not raise to D0/Spec,DP, Spec,DP being thus accessible as an escape hatch (also as a landing site for fronting to the DP-edge; cf. §..).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase

(ii) The answer to the second question is more straightforward: the decline of both edge-fronting and discontinuous structures is an effect of the complete reversal in the head-directionality parameter (Ledgeway , with references). As mentioned above, discontinuous DPs and APs do not have a high frequency in OR: they appear more frequently in writings from the first OR period and in Prince Dimitrie Cantemir’s writings and go extinct rapidly after , paralleling other word order changes in the nominal domain (the adjectival article construction gains ground after , cf. §.., §.). Thus edge-fronting and discontinuous structures – at the core of which is the availability of short, antilocal movement – reflect the last residues of head finality prior to the full establishment of a harmonic head-initial grammar in which roll-up movement is disallowed. As shown above, the disappearance of discontinuous DPs is not directly related to the development of definite articles. Yet, as shown by Ledgeway (), both the profusion of articles in Romance and the disappearance of discontinuous DPs are the ultimate reflex of the reversal in the head-directionality parameter, which makes the relation between these complementary developments epiphenomenal. This line of analysis is also supported by the complementary disappearance of discontinuous APs: although there is no functional element akin to the definite article in the adjectival domain, discontinuous APs disappeared at the same pace as discontinuous DPs, this diachrony thus confirming that the establishment of a harmonic headinitial grammar, and not the development of articles, is responsible for the ban on left-branch extraction.

. CONCLUDING REMARKS

..            This first part of this chapter (§.) focused on the low definite article construction, discussing the changes that occurred in the patterns of definiteness valuation and realization. It was shown that many of the word order options attested in OR definite DPs are attributable to a property made visible by the low definite article construction, namely the availability of long-distance Agree and valuation established by the [idef] probe hosted by D0. The low definite article is also relevant to the emergence of the Romanian suffixal definite article, as it confirms the diachronic scenario according to which the switch context favouring the reanalysis of the Latin demonstrative  (‘that’) as the suffixal definite article is the context [N > ] (Graur ). Thus the demonstrative first clustered with the head noun, presumably in a three-term structure (Cornilescu and Nicolae c) that would shift the nuclear stress on the last, most deeply

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi

Concluding remarks



embedded term (Cinque ). According to traditional scholarship, the choice of the word order [N > Dem] in the early stages of the development of Romanian was influenced by the local Dacian idioms spoken in the area (Brâncuş ; cf. also Hasdeu ). At a later stage, upon reanalysis of the demonstrative as a suffix, in order to become closer to the D position (bearer of interpretable unvalued definiteness), the newly coined functional element starts to suffix onto prenominal adjectives. Suffixation onto adjectives is permitted because the relation between nominal inflection and adjectival inflection is a set–subset relation: all adjectival inflections are also present in the nominal set of inflections, but not vice versa, and the set of morpho-phonological alternations is common to both nouns and adjectives (Brăescu :). Suffixation on prenominal adjectives is optional in the earlier stages, and subsequently becomes obligatory. The low definite article thus represents the missing link that confirms this diachronic scenario and eliminates the scepticism about Graur’s () hypothesis expressed by Renzi (:): ‘Despite its merits, Graur’s thesis is not unassailable. Its weakness lies not only in the fact that the role of analogy is very large by comparison to that of reanalysis, but above all in the fact that its functioning is not always clear. Why, then, if we start with omul bătrîn [man. old], we have bătrânul om [old. man] and not bătrîn omul [old man.]?’. The low definite article construction is the very construction deemed absent by Renzi ().

.. -    Besides the changes affecting the syntax of definiteness valuation and their effects in the DP-internal word order of definite DPs, two other changes contributed to the rigidification of DP-internal word order and to the diachronic reshaping of the prenominal domain. (i) Movement of the head noun to the edge of the nominal–internal phase nP is responsible for the fact that relational adjectives became obligatorily postnominal in the passage from OR to MR. This development actually took place across Romance (see Bortolotto , with references), and reflects the different N(P)-raising options of Latin, early and medieval Romance, and modern Romance (Crisma and Gianollo ; Gianollo ; Ledgeway ). The transition from OR to MR also makes visible another finer-grained change, namely the increasing propensity of relational adjectives to cluster with the head noun, qualifying adjectives either preceding or following the cluster in MR (contrary to the preferred word order in the earliest Romanian texts, which is [N > QualA > RelA, cf. Brăescu and Dragomirescu ). (ii) The full disappearance of the relics of the Latin head-final grammar in the nominal domain directly triggered the disappearance of structures in which

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/4/2019, SPi



Word order in the nominal phrase complex complements precede their associated head and indirectly restricted the access of constituents to the DP-edge, setting off the development of alternative strategies of DP-internal pragmatic marking (the most grammaticalized of which is the cel-adjectival article construction: see §.). Impossibility to access the DP-edge, the escape hatch from DPs, also leads to the elimination of discontinuous DPs.

The syntactic model adopted (the Agree-based model, on which see §.) can further allow us to unify the low definite article construction and fronting to the DP-edge, and their disappearance thereof. The fundamental similarity between these two phenomena is the availability of long-distance probing. In the case of the low definite article construction, the [idef ][]-bearing D-head probes across intervening constituents, and definiteness is valued long distance. In a similar fashion, from a technical point of view, prior to movement to the DP-edge, there is Agree between the attracting head (presumably endowed with an EPP-feature) and the moved constituent. And recall also that, in rare situations, long-distance probing in the low definite article construction may also lead to the movement of the definiteness-bearing constituent to the DP-edge across a phrasal intervener (i.e. examples like () in §...., with the word order definite adjective > numeral > non-definite head) – a word order option that went extinct in the passage to MR. Now, putting together the disappearance of the low definite article construction and of edge-fronting indicates that the profound change that took place in the nominal domain in the passage from OR to MR is the loss of the possibility of establishing long-distance probing relations that feed long-distance feature valuation and the movement of constituents that are not in an immediate probing (i.e. c-command) configuration with the attracting head. Restricting syntactic dependencies to local configurations inescapably leads to the tighter DP-internal word order of MR.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

5 Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel . INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE This chapter puts forward an in-depth analysis of the diachronic changes that took place in the demonstrative system in the passage from OR to MR. The most important developments are the following: (i) the syntactic specialization of demonstratives (head/phrase)1 in correlation with the weak/strong morphophonological distinction; (ii) the reanalysis of adnominal strong demonstratives as postnominal deictic adjectives, unable to value definiteness; (iii) the development of the postnominal demonstrative construction; and (iv) the grammaticalization of a novel definite determiner, Rom. cel (as a freestanding definite article and as an ‘adjectival article’).2 Word order change interacts with other diachronic processes (some of which take place across the board in the diachrony of Romanian nominal expressions; see also chapter ) to yield a typologically rare system of demonstrative determiners (see Diessel : ch.  for the adopted typology of adnominal demonstrative systems). The first part of the chapter deals with the diachronic restructuring of the system of Romanian demonstratives. The second part shows that one of the effects of the categorization of short forms as heads is the detachment of a distal weak form from the class of demonstratives (i.e. cel) and its grammaticalization as a freestanding definite determiner with special distributional and interpretative properties in Romanian. The syntactic structure adopted for DPs containing demonstratives respects the spirit of Cinque’s () findings on Greenberg’s Universal  and is in line with

1 Against a general background that (Romance) demonstratives are phrasal categories, hence specifiers (Bernstein ; Brugè ; Leu ; Roehrs , ), I will follow, and bring evidence in support of, Cornilescu’s () analysis according to which Romanian demonstratives may be either heads or phrases (see §..). 2 In line with traditional scholarship, I will continue to label cel in this construction as an ‘adjectival article’, although this is, to a certain degree, a misnomer (Cornilescu and Nicolae c); the set of modifiers introduced by cel contains more than adjectives – it also includes PPs and RCs (§...).

Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. First edition. Alexandru Nicolae. © Alexandru Nicolae . First published  by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

previous research on Romanian nominal expressions (Cornilescu , ; Tănase-Dogaru ; Cornilescu and Nicolae c; Nicolae b, etc.). I assume that, in accordance with their categorial status (head/phrase), demonstratives may merge either in the head or in the specifier of a functional projection labelled here Dem(P), which occupies a high position in the Romanian DP: ()

DP >

DemP >

QP >

( . . . ) NP

This functional structure not only accounts for the syntactic and word order restrictions of MR, but also explains the diachronic changes in the adnominal demonstrative system.

. THE SYNTACTIC SPECIALIZATION OF ROMANIAN DEMONSTRATIVES After briefly introducing the demonstrative system, I discuss at length the distribution and syntax of (adnominal) demonstratives in MR. I then focus on the internal structure and diachronic development of demonstratives and show that their synchronic and diachronic behaviour is read off their internal structure. Finally, I turn to the syntactic history of the demonstrative system and show that this syntactic specialization developed diachronically.

..        With the notable exception of the variety spoken in the area of Oltenia,3 Romanian demonstratives are organized along a binary person-oriented system (a B1(inary) system in Ledgeway b and in Ledgeway and Smith ), which distinguishes referents falling within the domain of the speaker, i.e. the deictic sphere (proximal demonstratives: acest(a), ăsta ‘this’), from non-discourse participants (distal demonstratives: acel(a), ăla ‘that’). The inventory of forms comprises both etymologically complex demonstratives, made up of a descendant of Lat.  ‘behold’ plus a demonstrative stem (Rom. acest 3 This dialect displays a three-way distinction, visible both with demonstratives and with spatial adverbs: ăsta (dem) / aici (adv) (proximal, near the speaker) ála (dem) / aci (adv) (medial, near the hearer) ăla (dem) / acolo (adv) (distal, away from the speaker and the hearer) (Dimitrescu ; Ionaşcu ). Oltenian thus fall within a T2(ernary) system, widespread across Romance (Ledgeway b; Ledgeway and Smith ). The fact that Serbian, a language spoken across the Danube from Oltenia, has a similar T2 deictic system (cf. Srb. ovaj ‘this (near the speaker)’, taj ‘this/that (near the hearer)’, onaj ‘that over there’) suggests that the Oltenian T2 system is an innovation of Romanian that developed as an effect of language contact (naturally, the fact that this system is widely attested in Romance favoured the Oltenian development).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



(a) ‘this’ <  + *() < ; acel(a) ‘that’ <  + *() < ),4 and etymologically simple forms (Rom. ăsta ‘this’ < *() < ; ăla ‘that’5). Morphophonological strength is another attribute that further distinguishes etymologically complex demonstratives. Strong forms are derivationally related to weak forms. This derivational relation is synchronically observable in the suffixation of the particle ‑a; the particle directly attaches to the weak demonstrative (weak: acel / strong: acela ‘that(.)’) or merges with the final segment of the demonstrative (weak: această / strong: aceasta ‘this(.)’), in a process very similar to the suffixation of the definite article to feminine nouns (compare with fată ‘girl’ / fata ‘girl.  ’). The suffixation of the particle -a may yield a word-internal change (weak: acea [aʧa] / strong: aceea [aʧeja] ‘that(.)’). The etymologically simple forms appear only as morphologically strong forms in standard Romanian (ăsta/*ăst ‘this’; ăla/*ăl ‘that’); their weak forms have been preserved only in compounds (ălălalt ‘that other one’ / ăstălalt ‘this other one’, astă-seară ‘tonight, etc.). In §... I return to the historical origin of the weak–strong distinction and show that the internal structure of demonstratives actually determines their syntax in the modern language and their diachronic specialization. The initial vowel a-, which occurs with all demonstratives in MR, is variably present in OR (see ()–()). Its origin is controversial. Most scholars consider that its presence is the effect of regular phonological change (compare  + / > Rom. acel/ acest with  > Rom. arici ‘hedgehog’), the a-less forms (e.g. (a), (a)) being thus aphaeretic (see Stoica  for a review). However, the aphaeresis hypothesis ignores the fact that in Latin and (early) Romance non-supported or non-reinforced forms were the original ones, which were widely used alongside the supported or nonreinforced forms (Adam Ledgway, p.c.). Furthermore, in earliest writings, demonstratives without initial a- and demonstratives with initial a- have close ratios of occurrence; the forms prefixed by a- steadily generalize by end of OR (see Table .). This diachrony indicates that these forms were initially in free variation – as happens in a widespread fashion across most of Romance, be it standardly, dialectally, or in the past (e.g. old/dialectal Sp. (aqu)este, (aqu)ese ‘this’, aquel ‘that’). It is only in a later phase of OR that the (innovative) a-forms generalize (see also §...). What is relevant for the discussion that follows is that the forms with initial a- and those without initial a- are functionally equivalent in OR (Densusianu , II:; Bidu ; Dimitrescu :) in most cases (however, see §... for a difference), as they appear in free variation in the same text, under the same distribution (e.g. as prenominal determiners in ()–()), just as we find them elsewhere in many Romance varieties.

4

See DELR (), acel, acest s.v. for all the possible etymologies. The direct descent of the simple demonstrative ăla (‘that’) from a non-standard late Latin form of  is controversial (see Bidu ; Iliescu ; Niculescu ; Giurgea b: ch.  for contrasting points of view; and Stoica  for a review). 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

TABLE . Demonstratives with initial a- vs demonstratives without initial aForms without initial a- (cest(a), cel(a), . . . )

Text

Forms with initial a- (acest(a), acel(a), . . . )

Total number of demonstratives (%)

 (.)



 (.%)

 (.%)



 (.%)

DÎ PH.–

 (.%)

 (.%)



1

CC . ( folios)

 (.%)

 (.%)



CL.

 (.%)

 (.%)



 (.%)

 (.%)



PO. ( folios)

 (.%)

 (.%)



MI.~

 (.%)

 (.%)



CazV. ( folios)

 (.%)

 (.%)



CV.– ( folios)

Prav.

() a. au trecut ceale .. pass. those. ‘those ships passed’ (DÎ.:I) b. vor treace aceale .. pass. those. ‘those ships will pass’ (DÎ.:I)

corabii ships corabii ships

() a. mergi la cest om bun go... to this. man good ‘you go to this good man’ (CM.:r) b. am scris acest molitevnic .. write. this. missal ‘I wrote this missal’ (CM.:v) Note that in DÎ, which is a collection of non-translated documents from the th century, there are more forms with initial a- than a-less forms; however, this result should be interpreted with caution, as the DÎ texts are disparate documents from all areas of the Romanian-speaking territory and cover almost eighty years, hence they do not reflect the grammar of a single author, translator, scribe, or area. Also, it is well known that non-translated texts usually reflect the innovative grammar to a larger extent than translations (see Pană Dindelegan and Dragomirescu  for OR). Furthermore, according to Frâncu (:), there are diatopic and diachronic differences in the distribution of the a-less forms: these forms are very frequent in the first OR period (up to ) but their frequency decreases after , and at a faster pace in the southern texts than in the Moldovan ones.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



..     :    ... The distribution of adnominal demonstratives in modern Romanian This section discusses the distribution of adnominal demonstratives in MR; the syntactic analysis which accounts for this distribution (§...) will be shown to follow from the interaction between the internal structure of demonstratives (§...) and the DP-internal movement and definiteness valuation options. This analysis enables us to turn to the diachrony of the demonstrative system and understand how the word order restrictions in DPs with demonstratives developed (§..). The weak–strong distinction has clear-cut distributional correlates. To begin with, weak demonstratives head DPs in which the head noun is non-definite (a), while strong demonstratives occur postnominally in DPs headed by definite nouns (b). () a. acest / acel frumos this. that. beautiful b. băiatul acesta / acela boy. this. that. ‘this/that beautiful boy’

băiat boy frumos beautiful

Under nominal ellipsis (example ()), in predicative position (example ()), and in identificational usage (example ()), only the strong form is selected: () a. √Omul person.

acesta / √ Acesta this. this.

b. √Acest om / *Acest this. man this. ‘This person/one came’ () El este he be... ‘He is this one’ ()

√Acesta / *acest this. this. ‘This is John’

√acesta / this.

a ..

venit. come.

a ..

venit. come.

*acest. this.

este be...

Ion. John

Adnominal weak demonstratives precede all the other DP-internal constituents, occurring on the left edge of the DP; they can be preceded only by focal adverbs and by the universal quantifier tot/tot¸i ‘all’ (example ()). DP-internal word order is freer in DPs with weak prenominal demonstratives than in DPs with strong demonstratives.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

() doar / tot¸i aceşti / acei doi (frumoşi) only all these. those. two beautiful ‘only / all these/those two beautiful boys’

băiet¸i boys

(frumoşi) beautiful

In contrast to other Romance languages that have a postnominal demonstrative construction (e.g. Spanish, Brugè ), in Romanian the strong postnominal demonstrative is strictly right-adjacent to the definite noun, as in (). The only candidate for the pre-demonstrative position is the definite noun. Romanian possesses a class of obligatorily prenominal adjectives (see (a)), which take over the definite article in prenominal position, as in (b); however, even when they are definite, these obligatorily prenominal adjectives cannot precede adnominal strong demonstratives (see (c)); only weak demonstratives may occur in this construction (example (d)). What is more, cardinal numerals, which are obligatorily prenominal in Romanian (example (a)), become postnominal in DPs with strong demonstratives (example (b)). ()

a. băiatul acesta frumos boy. this. beautiful ‘this beautiful boy’ b. *băiatul boy.

frumos beautiful

() a. fost ministru former minister ‘former minister’

acesta this. *ministru minister

//

fost former

b. fostul ministru former. minister ‘the former minister’ c. *fostul former.

ministru minister

acesta this.

d. acest fost ministru this. former minister ‘this former minister’ () a. doi copii two children ‘two children’

//

*copii / children

b. copiii aceştia children. these. ‘these two children’

*copiii children.

doi doi

doi two

According to Diessel (:–, §), the categorial status of a demonstrative is defined by two features: (i) a certain distribution, and (ii) a specific form. Taking

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



stock of the properties reviewed in this section, we may conclude that MR demonstratives fall into two distinct categorial classes, as they observe both criteria established in Diessel (). Occurrence in nominal ellipsis, predicative position, and identificational constructions indicates that strong demonstratives are phrasal elements (XPs), while weak demonstratives are heads (X0) (Cornilescu ). Adopting the structure in (), weak demonstratives merge in Dem0 and may undergo raising to D0, while strong demonstratives are specifiers of DemP that do not undergo further raising to D. To conclude, in contrast with other Romance varieties, which employ the distinction between strong (in this case, -reinforced) forms and weak forms to mark the pronominal–adnominal distinction (e.g. modern Nap. chisto/sto, Anzese chisso/ sso; kwéstə/stú, kwéssə/ssú; northern Cal. chistu/stu, chissu/ssu; see Ledgeway b:),6 MR makes use of this distinction in a slightly different manner: weak forms are heads and function as prenominal determiners, while strong forms are postnominal phrasal elements and pronouns.

... On the origin of strong forms: A bare demonstrative-reinforcer construction From a Romance comparative and diachronic perspective, there is agreement that etymologically complex demonstratives in Romanian descend from the -reinforced forms of Lat.  and  (see §..; cf. also It. questo, OFr. cest ‘this’ / It. quello, OFr. cel, Fr. celui). Prefixation of  yields the etymologically complex weak forms whose distribution, as we have seen, is not problematic in Romanian, being similar to that of other prenominal demonstrative determiners in Romance. However, the source of strong forms has been a matter of controversy among scholars, the wordfinal particle -a having been given various and (to a certain degree) contradictory origins (see Stoica :– for a review). In this section I argue for the hypothesis that the Romanian strong demonstratives developed from a bare demonstrativereinforcer construction (see Roehrs  on the distinction between bare- vs PP-reinforcer constructions), through a process of recurrent cyclical change. Their historically complex internal structure will be shown to be crucial to our understanding of their syntax in the modern phase of Romanian as well as to the historical development of the Romanian demonstrative system. The final particle -a has been variously considered to derive either from a reduced form of Latin distal  (‘(over) there, that way’) or from the Latin proximal  (‘here, this way’) (see Dimitrescu : for a discussion). Manoliu (:, :) claims that actually both  and  may be the source of the final particle -a. I will also adopt this hypothesis and support it with evidence. 6 In these varieties, too, the strong/weak distinction might be plausibly correlated with a phrase/head distinction (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.), yet the adnominal postnominal usage of strong forms is particular to Romanian.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

To begin with, encliticization of either  or  on the weak demonstrative yields the resulting strong forms (including the morphophonological alternation weak: (a)cea [(a)ʧḙa] / strong: (a)ceea [(a)ʧeja] ‘that(.)’) from the point of view of the historical morphophonology of Romanian (Dimitrescu :). Thus, for both  or , the final consonant -c was dropped as part of a general process that was on its way since late Latin; word-final -c is among the Latin word-final consonants (along with -t, -d, and -s) that did not leave any trace in Romanian (Densusianu , II:). With respect to word-initial h- of , it is well known that h had a peripheral position in the Latin phonological system and probably disappeared in late Latin (cf.  > Rom. iarbă ‘grass’, also elsewhere in Romance) (Fischer :; Brâncuş :,; Sala :). The geminate -ll- of  had a history similar with that of (), which developed into the feminine definite article (() > Rom. -a): -ll- disappears when it precedes unstressed a and i (() > Rom. stea ‘star’, () ‘puppy ()’ > Rom. căt¸ea ‘bitch’;  () > Rom. găină ‘hen’,  > Rom. cai ‘horses’), but not elsewhere – e.g. when it precedes a different vowel (() > Rom. cal ‘horse’) or a stressed a (  () > Rom. măcelar ‘butcher’) (Densusianu , II:; Brâncuş :, Sala :,, i.a.). To conclude, both 7 and  reduce to a. Second, the structures assumed to have developed into strong demonstratives have the form [demonstrative + proximal/distal adverb]. This syntactic configuration characterizes bare demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. Bernstein (:–), Roehrs (:), Ferrazzano () and other scholars have shown that, in demonstrativereinforcer constructions, concord in proximity between the demonstrative and the adverbial reinforcer is favoured (cf. non-standard English demonstrative-reinforcer constructions this here house / that there house, but *this there house / ?*that here house in contrast to this/the/a guy here, where the adverbial is a true locative), yet not obligatory (cf. Fr. celui-ci ‘this’, celui-la ‘that’, and other cases, e.g. Ligurian, Turinese, Occitan, documented in Ledgeway b and in Ledgeway and Smith ). Thus, from this perspective, both distal  and proximal  are congruent with the hypothesis that they are the source of the final particle -a. Third, while old and modern Daco-Romanian do not feature bare demonstrativereinforcer constructions, there exist bare demonstrative-reinforcer constructions in the historical dialects of Romanian. The variety of Aromanian spoken in Deniscu (Greece) has developed bare demonstrative-reinforcer constructions in which the proximal demonstrative is reinforced by proximal adverbial aoa (‘here’), and the distal demonstrative by distal aclo (‘there’) (Caragiu-Mariot¸eanu ) (). Thus, 7 I is also standardly given as the etymon of Rom. la ‘to, at’. While it is odd that  occurs in one case as la and in the other as -a (the demonstrative particle), there are at least two explanations for this outcome: first, the proclitic position of  > la vs the enclitic position of  > -a might have led to differentiated resulting outcomes (Adam Ledgeway, p.c.); second, authors such as Densusianu (, II:) assume that  was reinforced by  in the development of Rom. la.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



the postposition of - and -like adverbials to demonstratives cyclically resurfaces in varieties closely related historically to Daco-Romanian. () a. Ilu veḍ .. see.. ‘Do you see that one?’

at¸elu̯-aclói ̯a? that-there

(Aromanian)

b. oslu aestu̯-ao ̯ái ̯a bone. this-here ‘this bone’ Let us adopt the hypothesis that the strong demonstratives emerged through the incorporation of  and  onto weak demonstrative stems in demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. Leu (, ), Roehrs (, ), Ferrazzano (), and other researchers assume that phrasal demonstratives (i.e. the strong forms of Romanian) (i) have a complex internal structure and (ii) are phasal domains (cf. Chomsky  and subsequent work). Roehrs’ () analysis, which I adopt here, assumes that complex demonstratives minimally consist of a deictic phrase (DeicP), on top of which there is a functional phrase, the DemP; these two phrases always co-occur. The demonstrative starts out in the lower Deic0 and optionally undergoes head movement to the higher Dem0. The internal structure can be optionally augmented by an intermediate functional phrase FP, whose specifier accommodates reinforcers in demonstrative-reinforcer constructions (demonstratives and their reinforcer(s) are base-generated in the same projection, Bernstein ). A simplified version of the structure proposed by Roehrs () for complex demonstratives with reinforcers is given in (). ()

DemP Dem0

FP F0

DeicP Deic0

As argued above, strong forms result from a demonstrative-reinforcer construction (/ > Rom. -a). Therefore we assume that the reinforceraccommodating FP is present in the internal structure of the strong demonstratives, but is lexicalized differently. I and , which were originally phrasal, lexicalized Spec,FP. Diachronically, they are reanalysed as heads in accordance with van Gelderen’s () Head Preference Principle,8 and thus merge in F0:

8

Heads-over-Phrases (van Gelderen :) ‘Be a Head rather than a Phrase (if possible)’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

() a.

DemP

b.

Dem0

FP

→

ReinfP

DemP Dem0

FP

F’ F0

F’ F0

DeicP (…)

ILLAC / HAC

-a

DeicP (…)

Thus the derivation of complex strong demonstratives involves head movement of the demonstrative head merged in Deic0 to F0; the demonstrative head left-adjoins the particle -a in F0, and the strong demonstratives are thus formed. ()

DemP Dem0

FP Deic0+F0

DeicP Deic0

acest-a acel-a

acestacel-

(‘this’) (‘that’)

In the analysis that follows, I will retain the idea that Romanian complex strong demonstratives are augmented by a descendant of Lat.  and , syntactically present as a functional head in the extended demonstrative phrase. Before we move to the next section, two issues must be addressed with respect to the assumptions and consequences of this analysis. The first one concerns the DemP-internal movement options (the presence or absence of the FP is immaterial for this issue). According to Roehrs (:), in Germanic the Deic0 head always undergoes movement to the highest DemPinternal head to pick up the definite marker, base-generated in the high Dem0. By contrast, in Romance, movement to the highest layer is possible, but optional. Optionality in movement has important consequences for the syntax of demonstratives under the assumption that demonstratives are phasal. In Germanic, movement to the highest DemP-internal layer ensures that demonstratives are always visible for probing by the D0 head of the extended nominal projection onto which demonstratives are merged as specifiers, because movement to the edge of the DemP ensures that they are visible in accordance with the Phase

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



Impenetrability Condition.9 On the other hand, optional movement to the edge opens the possibility for syntactic variation in Romance. Roehrs () actually derives the existence of prenominal (a) and postnominal demonstratives (b) in Spanish from this very optionality. () a. este / this

ese / that

aquel that

(Spanish, Brugè :)

libro book

b. el libro este / ese / the book this that ‘this/that/that book’

aquel that

In the prenominal demonstrative construction (a), the deictic part moves to the highest DemP‑internal projection, being thus the first goal in the c-command domain of D0; definiteness valuation takes place (a), and DemP is pied-piped to Spec,DP (b). By contrast, in the postnominal demonstrative construction (b), the deictic part remains in situ; since it is not on the edge of the DemP, it is not visible for probing, hence the definite article is inserted as a last resort in D0 () and values definiteness by direct merger. () a.

DP

→

b.

DemP D0 [idef ] [+def] agree Dem’ DemP (definiteness (…) valuation) Deic0+Dem0 DeicP [u+def] Deic0 este/esse/aquel este/esse/aquel

()

DP D’

DemP

D0 DemP [idef][def ] tDemP

Dem’ (…)

este/esse/aquel

DP D0 [idef][+def]

DemP DemP

Dem0

DeicP

Dem’ (…)

Deic0 el [u+def]

9

este/esse/aquel

Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky :) [Given the structure [ZP Z . . . [HP α [H YP]]], with H and Z the heads of phases]: ‘The domain of H is not accessible to operations at ZP; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

Roehrs’ analysis not only derives the word order facts of Spanish correctly, but is also compatible with Bernstein’s () analysis, which accounts for differences in interpretation (prenominal demonstratives are unmarked, while postnominal demonstratives are focused and have a very marked pejorative reading) from distinct movement options. For the analysis of Romanian, I will retain the idea the movement to the highest DemP-internal layer is optional in Romance. The second issue concerns the ordering of the particles successively reinforcing the demonstrative stem in the Latin-to-Romanian development of strong demonstratives. Namely, why is it that a descendant of  attaches in pre-demonstrative position, while the bleached remnants of  and  are word final particles?10 There are two factors that might explain this contrast. The first one is the nature of the elements under discussion. While  and  are obviously locatives, Lat.  (lit. ‘behold’) has been variously treated as a demonstrative particle (Lausberg :; Tekavčić :), as a presentative (Maiden :), as a focalizer (Adams :), and as a Contrast head (Ferrazzano :), but also as a reinforcer (Vincent ; Giusti ). Vincent () actually argues that the inherently addressee-oriented nature of  supplied the deictic content (nd person/interlocutor) for , an inherently non-deictic element drawn into the paradigm of demonstratives in the ternary deictic systems of the , ,  type (cf. ONap. chisto, chisso, chillo, OCat. (aqu)est, (aqu)eix, aquell); thus  and  (originally the reinforcer) switched values over time,  being reanalysed as the reinforcer and  as the deictic. Hence, while  and  are suitable candidates for a demonstrative-reinforcer construction, the structures with  might involve a slightly different syntactic structure. However, if we wish to preserve the intuition that language change is cyclical and assume that -based demonstratives and - and -based demonstratives roughly rely on a similar syntactic structure, then we might speculate that augmentation on the different sides of the demonstrative stem is due to a different factor: the ongoing change in the headdirectionality parameter in the passage from Latin to Romance (Ledgeway ). The merger of  with the demonstratives  and  was a slow and late process (Adams :–), traces of which can be found in pre-classical Latin (Densusianu , I:; Adams :); witness the attested forms ecciste and eccille in Plautus (Adams :–). The occurrence of -based collocations or compounds in Latin may be taken to reflect a head-final conservative syntax. By contrast, reinforcement by locatives has taken place after the emergence of the Romance vernaculars, hence the demonstrative > locative reinforcer word order on

10 As shown in Ledgeway (b) and Ledgeway and Smith (), in some dialects of north-eastern Italy one can optionally find the spatial locative adverbs (, ) before the demonstrative (e.g. orders like / (/)–(-)/- alongside orders like (-)/-–/ (/).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



which the Romanian strong demonstratives are assumed to have developed may be interpreted as reflecting the innovative head-initial syntax of Romance.

... The syntactic derivation of adnominal demonstrative constructions On the basis of the distributional features of weak and strong demonstratives and of the differences in the internal structure of strong and weak demonstratives discussed above, this section develops a syntactic analysis of adnominal demonstratives in MR, which will enable us to understand the diachrony of this system as well. I follow here the intuition, first expressed by Cornilescu () (also adopted in Nicolae b, b), that prenominal and postnominal demonstrative constructions have different derivations, but, on the basis of the previous discussion, I will propose another implementation. The derivation of the prenominal demonstrative is not problematic. Recall that only weak demonstratives may occur in prenominal position; the inability to license nominal ellipsis, to occur in predicative position, and to license an identificational sentence indicates that weak forms are heads in the extended projection of the head noun. Weak demonstratives thus merge in the Dem0 head position; they are probed by D0 and value the [idef ] feature of D0. The fact that they can be preceded only by elements that adjoin DPs externally (universal Qs, focusing adverbs, see ()) indicates that they are on the edge of the DP, i.e. upon Agree they undergo movement to D0. () aceşti doi copii these.w two children ‘these two children’

a.

→

DP D0 [idef][+def]

Dem0+D0

DemP

Dem0 agree (definiteness valuation) aceşti

[u+def]

DP

QP (…) doi copii

aceşti

DemP Dem0

QP (…)

aceşti

doi copii

By contrast, in the postnominal demonstrative construction, only strong demonstratives are available in MR. Recall that strong demonstratives are categorially different from weak demonstratives: they are phrasal and they merge as specifiers of DemP. Furthermore, what particularizes the MR postnominal demonstrative construction is the fixed word order of the DP-internal constituents: the head noun must be definite and occur strictly to the left of the strong demonstrative. With one single exception (accounted for by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

my analysis, see §....), only a definite noun may precede the strong demonstrative. Note not only that qualifying adjectives (see (a)) are obligatorily separated from the head noun by the intervening strong demonstratives, but also that the expected contiguity of the head noun with relational adjectives (see (b)) and arguments of the noun (see (c)) is broken in this construction. Recall also that cardinal numerals, obligatorily prenominal in Romanian, become postnominal in this construction (see (d)). () a. băiatul (*frumos) boy. beautiful ‘this beautiful boy’ b. maşina (*germană) car. German ‘this German car’

acesta this.

frumos beautiful

aceasta this.

germană German

c. acordarea (*de burse) aceasta granting. of grants this. ‘this granting of scholarships’ d. copiii aceştia children. these. ‘these two children’

de burse of grants

doi two

This distribution has been derived by Cornilescu () (cf. also Giusti ) by assuming that there is head movement of the definite noun across the phrasal demonstrative in Spec,DemP, a solution I also adopt. If NP movement were at play, we would expect, for example, demonstratives to follow the arguments of the noun, contrary to fact (see (c)). The final step of the derivation is given in (): ()

băiatul boy.def

acesta this.w DP DemP

N0+D0 DemP

băiatul

acesta

Dem’ N0+Dem0 băiatul

In this configuration, prior to the movement of the definite noun to D0, the phrasal demonstrative is obviously closer to (or at least equally distant from) probing head D0 (specified as [idef]). Why is it, then, that the phrasal demonstrative in Spec,DemP does not qualify as a potential goal for D0 (with the consequence of being attracted to the Spec,DP upon Agree)?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



Cornilescu () suggests that, because both the phrasal demonstrative and the definite noun are in the same minimal domain, there applies an economy principle that requires the displacement of only as much material as is needed for convergence (Pied Pipe Less Weight, Stateva ; or Attract / Move Smallest, Akiyama ). Heads are lighter or smaller than phrases, hence N0 movement takes precedence over DemP movement to Spec,DP. Alternatively, capitalizing on the internal structure proposed for strong demonstratives in the previous section, the choice of head movement over phrasal movement can be given a more principled explanation. In the analysis proposed in (), the demonstrative stem merges in Deic0, then raises and adjoins to the particle -a hosted by F0, yielding thus the strong form of the demonstrative. Since movement to the highest head in the extended demonstrative projection is not necessary (either empirically or theoretically: recall Roehrs’ analysis of Spanish), the strong demonstrative need not undergo this movement step. Adopting the previously mentioned assumption that DemP is phasal, only its edge (Spec,DemP or Dem0) is visible for probing. The strong demonstrative occupying F0 does not therefore qualify as a potential goal for the [idef] probe in D0; hence probing proceeds across the demonstrative, further down in the c-command domain of D0. The first goal in the c-command domain of D0 is the definite noun. This step of the derivation is depicted in (). Upon Agree, there is obligatorily N-to-D movement, yielding the rigidly ordered structure Ndef –DemStrong, corresponding to the representation in (). ()

băiatul boy.def

acesta this.s DP

D0 [idef][+def]

DemP DemP

Spec

N0+Dem0

Dem’ Dem0

agree edge (definiteness valuation)

Dem’

FP

Deic0+F0 DeicP Deic0 acest-a

acest

băiatul [u+def]

QP (…)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

.... Consequences of the analysis (i) The postnominal demonstrative construction is not available when Spec,DP is targeted by phrasal constituents (Giurgea c). Neither a strong, nor a weak demonstrative may be crossed over by another phrasal element. Witness the contrasts below: () a. ale cărui .. whose ‘whose lyrics’ b. *ale ..

cărui whose

versuri lyrics acele / those.

acelea those.

versuri lyrics

() a. foarte frumoasele versuri very beautiful. lyrics ‘the very beautiful lyrics’ b. *foarte frumoasele very beautiful.

acele / those.

acelea those.

versuri lyrics

(ii) Recall that Romanian has a class of obligatorily prenominal adjectives, which undergo definiteness agreement in definite DPs (example (a)); the postnominal demonstrative construction is not available with these adjectives (see (b)). Movement of the entire [adjective + noun] sequence is not an option either (see (c)); only weak, obligatorily prenominal demonstratives are available with former-type adjectives (see (d)). () a. fostul ministru former. minister ‘the former minister’ b. *fostul former.

acesta this.

c. *fostul former.

ministru minister

ministru minister acesta this.

In both situations, movement to the DP-projection targets a phrasal constituent; movement is banned because of a minimality violation whereby a phrasal constituent (e.g. a definite adjective in (a)) crosses over another phrasal constituent (the strong demonstrative in Spec,DemP). The simplified representation in () accounts for the ill-formedness of (b) (and also for the cases discussed in this section in (i)). Since the adjective is obligatorily prenominal, it undergoes definiteness agreement with the definite noun (§...). Upon the merger of the demonstrative and of D0, probing proceeds across the demonstrative (cf. ()), and the first goal in the c‑command domain of D0 is the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



definite adjective. However, in spite of successful Agree, AP movement to Spec,DP is blocked by the demonstrative in Spec,DP. By parity of reasoning, this account carries over to cases like (c), which involve phrasal movement of the snowballing type (the entire FP is pied-piped across the demonstrative).

DP

()

Spec,DP

D’ D0 [idef][+def ]

DemP DemP

Dem0 illicit movement agree (definiteness valuation)

Dem’ FP AP

F’

[u+def]

agree (definiteness agreement)

F0

NP N0

[u+def]

(iii) The adjacency constraint also occurs elsewhere in the Romanian DP, namely in DPs with DP-initial definite nouns and postnominal ordinal numerals: ordinals, also phrasal constituents, can only be crossed over by a definite noun by head movement, but not by phrasal constituents. Witness the following contrast: () a. premiul al doilea al prize. the-second .. ‘the committee’s second prize’ b. *premiul prize.

comisiei committee..

comisiei committee.. al doilea the-second

(iv) Other suffixal definite determiners may be pied-piped along by the definite noun across the demonstrative in the postnominal demonstrative construction; this is the case of enclitic possessive adjectives, which have been argued to be affixes (Niculescu ): () frate-miu ăsta mic brother=my this. little ‘this little brother of mine’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

(v) Polydefinite DPs with postnominal demonstratives (example (a); cf. Iordan ; Marin  shows that this pattern is still productive in the southern dialectal area) can also be derived in the proposed analysis; the presence or absence (cf. (a) and (b)) of the definite article on the postnominal adjective depends on the timing of definiteness agreement between the noun and the adjective prior to N-to-D movement.11 () a. muncitorul worker.

ăla that

vrednicul assiduous.

b. muncitorul ăla vrednic worker. that assiduous ‘that assiduous worker’ (vi) Finally, this analysis also captures the intuition that adnominal strong demonstratives are non‑definite. Rather they are mere deictic adjectives encoding proximity or distance and do not interact with definiteness valuation, which is ensured by the definite article. Additional evidence may be given to support this idea. Romanian possesses a class of identity determiners or identity pronouns (acelaşi ‘the/a same (one)’), whose internal structure consists of the demonstrative plus the particle -şi (see Nicolae a for details). All forms of the identity lexeme, including the oblique forms, are based on the distal strong demonstrative; witness the data reported in Table .. TABLE . Weak demonstratives, strong demonstratives, and identity determiners/ pronouns Demonstrative: weak Singular

Plural

Nom-Acc

acel () acea ()

acei () acele ()

Gen-Dat

acelui () acelei ()

acelor (, )

Demonstrative: strong Singular

Identity

Plural

Singular

Plural

acela () aceea ()

aceia () acelea ()

acelaşi () aceeaşi ()

aceiaşi () aceleaşi ()

aceluia () aceleia ()

acelora (, )

aceluiaşi () aceleiaşi ()

aceloraşi (, )

11 There are interpretative differences between the two options in (), which result from their derivational histories; in (a), the adjective was, prior to N-to-D movement, prenominal (c-commanding the noun and undergoing definiteness agreement), hence it has the interpretation of an optionally prenominal adjective (subjective evaluation) (Brăescu :–).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



The distribution of identity determiners shows that these forms are underspecified with respect to definiteness. While the default interpretation of DPs containing only the identity determiner is definite (example ()), combination with the indefinite article (example ()) and with other indefinite quantifiers (example ()) is possible (and attested in MR, Barbu ). Just like the strong demonstratives on the basis of which they are formed, these forms are thus also nondefinite. The definite interpretation of examples such as () most probably obtains in a spec-head configuration, resulting from the last resort movement of the identity determiner to Spec,DP. () acelaşi om ‘the same man’ () un acelaşi drept a same law ‘a law of the same kind’ (Bălcescu, th c.) () Din fiecare acelaşi număr from each same number ‘from each same number’ (internet) In conclusion, adnominal strong forms do not participate in definiteness valuation. .... A possible counterexample to the established word order generalizations? A very restricted class of evaluative adjectives, which are obligatorily prenominal (biet ‘pitiable’) or which acquire an evaluative reading in prenominal position (e.g. sărac ‘(lit.) poor, (prenominal) pitiable’), may precede the definite noun in the postnominal demonstrative construction; they occur on the edge of the DP and undergo definiteness agreement with the definite noun: () bietul băiatul pitiable. boy. ‘that pitiable boy’

ăla that.

What looks like a violation generalization established above – at first sight, it is a structure like (c), which involves snowballing of the adjective + noun sequence across the demonstrative – may actually be accounted for in the system outlined so far. The only adjectives that can appear in this construction are object-level adjectives (Cornilescu ), which semantically combine with a DPconstituent (they are DP-level adjectives, cf. Larson and Marušič ; see also Cornilescu and Nicolae ). The fact that they semantically combine with a DP constituent is syntactically interpreted as follows: they involve a split-DP structure

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

with an outer D-layer and an inner D-layer (Aboh ; Giusti ; Laenzlinger ; Cornilescu and Nicolae a), and they merge in the space between Douter and Dinner, i.e. in the periphery of the DP. From this position, they c‑command the definite noun (which has undergone head movement to Dinner, i.e. the regular derivation of the postnominal demonstrative construction) and undergo definiteness agreement; as such, they serve as the goal of the [idef] probe of Douter. This process is depicted in (). () bietul

băiatul ăla pitiable.def boy.def that.s

DPouter D’outer D0outer [idef][+def]

FP

AP agree [udef][+def] (definiteness F0 valuation)

F’ DPinner D’inner N0+D0

agree (definiteness agreement)

bietul

[u+def]

băiatul

DemP DemP

ăla

Dem’ Dem0

The semantic–combinatorial type of these adjectives is very important: in order to combine with a DP constituent, they need to be of an appropriate semantic type (i.e. ⟨e; t⟩). The other class of obligatorily prenominal adjectives (i.e. adjectives like former in ()) contains kind-level modifiers (i.e. ⟨k; t⟩): these cannot take a DP in their scope, hence merger in the left periphery above Dinner is not an option. That these adjective are directly merged in (not moved to) the DP left periphery in the postnominal demonstrative construction is also supported by the fact that they cannot take degree markers in this construction (owing to their exclusive object-level reading), although they are gradable (both in prenominal and in postnominal position) in the regular case:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives () a. (*foarte) very

săracii poor

băiet¸ii boys.

b. băiet¸ii boys.

foarte very

săraci poor



ăştia these

c. foarte săracii băiet¸i very poor boys. ‘these very poor boys’

... Summary (i) The MR morphophonological distinction between weak and strong demonstratives correlates with distinct phrasal statuses: weak forms are heads, while strong forms are phrases. (ii) The head/phrase distinction is associated with different syntactic derivations; while DPs with weak forms have the typical syntax of demonstrative determiners in other Romance languages, DPs with strong demonstratives involve definite N0-movement across the phrasal demonstrative; this yields the postnominal demonstrative construction, which is characterized by a fixed word order, i.e. by the adjacency constraint. (iii) The distinct phrasal statuses and, implicitly, the different derivations stem from the disparity in internal structure of weak and strong forms. (iv) Adnominal strong demonstratives are not definite determiners; rather they are deictic adjectives that do not play any role in the valuation of definiteness.

..    :       In what follows, I present evidence that shows that in the earliest Romanian writings weak and strong demonstratives are not categorially distinct and that their specialization is gradual; next, I defend the hypothesis that the adnominal usage of strong demonstratives results from the structural simplification of a biphrasal appositional construction in a P-ambiguous context.

... Categorially non-distinct adnominal demonstratives Recall that, in order to separate demonstratives into two categorially distinct classes (§...), the demonstrative lexemes need to have (i) a distinct distribution and (ii) a specific form. While both strong and weak demonstratives are available since

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

the earliest Romanian written records (criterion (ii) is thus satisfied), these forms appear in free variation, even in the same text; thus Diessel’s () first criterion is not satisfied, hence weak and strong demonstratives are not categorially distinct in this phase of Romanian (Nicolae b). .... Indiscriminate usage of forms in prenominal and postnominal position It has been observed that the prenominal position may accommodate both weak (as in ()) and strong demonstratives (as in ()) (see Diaconescu ; Bidu ; Dimitrescu :; Stan b, a): () a. pentru acel bir for that.w tax ‘for that tax’ (DÎ.:IX) b. această sământ¸ă this.w seed ‘this seed’ (PH.–:r) () a. aceasta a mea scrisoare this.  my letter ‘this letter of mine’ (DÎ.:X) b. aceastea cărt¸i creştineşti these. books Christian ‘these Christian books’ (CCat.:r) While northern texts tend to use indiscriminately weak and strong forms in prenominal position (Frâncu :), southern texts are characterized by a more innovative grammar: weak forms are preferred in prenominal position, and strong forms in postnominal position. Early th-century non-translated documents show variation within the same text, as in () (Stan a:). Bidu () discovered that even in a mid-th-century text (CazV.), the number of strong forms exceeds that of weak forms in prenominal position. The usage of strong forms in prenominal position gradually decreases after  (Frâncu :, ). This diachrony is confirmed by our quantitative analysis (Table .). Once again, in contrast to translations, the nontranslated documents of the th century reflect the more innovative grammar: the ratio of weak forms to strong forms in prenominal position is  to . () ac(e)astă moşie this. estate ‘this estate’

/

ac(e)sta zapis this. document ‘this document’ (Doc.Athos2.:; Stan a)

The opposite pattern is also attested: both strong (example ()) and weak (example ()) forms occur in postnominal position. However, in contrast to the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



TABLE . Strong vs weak forms in prenominal position Strong forms in prenominal position ((a)cesta, (a)cela + N)

Text

Weak forms in prenominal position ((a)cest, (a)cel + N)

Total number of prenominal demonstratives (%)

DÎ

 (.%)

 (.%)



PH.–

 (.%)

 (.%)



CV.– ( folios)

 (%)

 (%)



CC1. ( folios)

 (%)

 (%)



 (%)

 (%)



CL. Prav.

 (.%)

 (.%)



PO. ( folios)

 (.%)

 (.%)



MI.~

 (.%)

 (.%)



CazV. ( folios)

 (.%)

 (.%)



CazV. ( folios) (Bidu )

 (.%)

 (.%)



presence of both strong and weak forms in prenominal position, a phenomenon that can be categorized as free variation, weak forms in postnominal position are extremely rare, confined mostly to th-century (translated) texts. Note also that the postnominal demonstrative construction () is rare in the non-translated documents DÎ (it has only  occurrences), a fact that may be taken to indicate the low degree of grammaticalization of this construction. () a. in anulu acesta  in year. that.  ‘in that year ’ (DÎ.:CXIII) b. în iezerul acela in mountain.lake. that. ‘in that mountain lake’ (A.:v) () a. neamul acel nation. that.w ‘that nation’ (CP1.:r) b. pilda această parable. this. ‘this parable’ (CC2.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

.... Pronominal usage In OR, both strong and weak forms (examples () and () respectively) could function pronominally (cf. also Dimitrescu :); this also includes the identificational usage ((b), (c)). () a. audu şi înt¸elegu lucru ca acesta hear... and understand... thing like this. ‘they hear and understand a thing like this one’ (DÎ.:XVIII) b. Acela era răul sterpiciunei that. be... wickedness. sterility.. ‘That was the wickedness of sterility’ (SVI.~:v) de Căvăransebeş () a. această ascultă this. listen... to Căvăransebeş ‘this one obeys Căvăransebeş’ (DÎ.:XIX) b. Aceste zise marele împărat Alexandru these.w say... great. emperor Alexander ‘The great emperor Alexander said these (words)’ (A.:v) c. acel e frate mie that. be... brother me. ‘That is my brother’ (CT.–:r) d. n-at¸i făcut unuia de-aceşti mai mici not=.. do. one. of-these. more little ‘you didn’t do it to one of these younger ones’ (CazV.:r) The pronominal usage is gradually restricted to strong forms by the end of the OR period.

... Definiteness valuation by adnominal demonstratives Interestingly, both strong demonstratives and weak demonstratives optionally participate in definiteness valuation. When prenominal, strong ((), ()) and weak ((), ()) demonstratives may be followed by a definite noun ((), ()) or by a non-definite noun ((), ()). () a. aceasta moşia vândut-am this. property. sell.=.. ‘I sold this property’ (DÎ.–:XIII) b. însuşŭ acela judecătoriulŭ dereptŭ himself that. judge. honest ‘that honest judge himself ’ (CC2.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



() a. acela hotar that. border ‘that border’ (DÎ.:XXXIII) b. de acesta cuvânt of this. word ‘of this word’ (PI.~:r) () a. această muiarea this. woman ‘this woman’ (CC2.:) b. întru această vreamea trecătoarea in this. time. passing. ‘in these passing times’ (CC2.:) () a. într-acest iaz in-this. pond ‘in this pond’ (DÎ.:IV) b. la acel copaci at that tree ‘at that tree’ (Fiz.:v) The first pattern (i.e. ()) occurs most prominently in the th century (Diaconescu ), and is also attested in the non-translated documents (DÎ); relics are available up until the th century (example ()). () acela domnul voroavei râmleneşti that. lord. speech.. Roman. ‘that lord of Roman elocution’ (NCLI.~:; Stan b) By contrast, the pattern in (), in which prenominal weak demonstratives co-occur with a definite noun, is rare, confined mostly to th-century translations. The optional presence of the definite article on the noun in these constructions indicates that two distinct patterns of definiteness valuation are at work. In () and (), the only definite determiner is the prenominal demonstrative; the prenominal demonstrative values the [idef ] feature of D0, as in (), and presumably undergoes subsequent movement to D/Spec,DP. () DP [idef ][+def]

DemP S/W-Dem[u+def]

definiteness valuation

NP N(non-definite)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

By contrast, in the structures in which demonstratives precede a definite noun ((), (), and ()), definiteness is valued via Agree across the prenominal demonstrative (see ()). Structures of this type are low definite article constructions (see chapter ). ()

DP [idef][+def]

DemP S/W-Dem

NP N[u+def ]

definiteness valuation Recall that in the low definite article construction (see e.g. ()), definiteness is valued across a prenominal intervener, which can in principle take over the definite article, but does not (Cornilescu and Nicolae c; §): ()

mării cu [dp cinstită tale] cartea honoured letter.def highness.def.gen your with ‘with your highness’ honoured letter’ (dî.1596:cvi) dp [idef ][+def]

fp ap(non-definite)

np n[u+def]

definiteness valuation The fact that strong demonstratives are frequently by-passed in the process of definiteness valuation (while weak demonstratives are not: the structure in () has only a few attestations, limited to th-century translations) indicates that the strong forms are already on the path to being categorized as complex forms merged in Spec, DemP, invisible for the [idef ] probe of D0. In other words, this pattern reflects the MR grammar, with the sole exception of the fact that definite N0 movement to D0 is obligatory in MR (see (b)), but not in OR (compare (a) = (a)). () a. aceasta moşia this. property. ‘this property’ (DÎ.–:XIII) b. moşiai aceasta moşiai (MR counterpart)

... Demonstratives in polydefinite structures The postnominal weak demonstrative construction in () differs from the postnominal strong demonstrative construction in () in that only the latter favours in OR the multiple realization of definiteness (Stan b:–). () a. mâncăriei acea porcească food.. that. porcine ‘of that porcine food’ (CC2.:) b. bucinul acel îngeresc alphorn. that. angelical ‘that angelical alphorn’ (CazV.:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



() a. lumiei aceştiia înşălătoarea world.. this.. deceiving.. ‘of this deceiving world’ (CC2.:) b. locul acesta sfântul place. this. sacred. ‘this sacred place’ (CV.–:r) Weak forms rarely appear in polydefinite constructions with multiple definite articles; the form cel appears in this pattern alongside a proper name; it is not clear whether this is one of the first grammaticalized instances of  or the aphaeretic weak distal demonstrative. () Domnul cel tarele lord. that./ strong. ‘the strong Lord’ (PH.–:r)

... Non-adjacency: Phrasal movement across strong demonstratives Strong demonstratives may be preceded by complex NPs (Cornilescu and Nicolae ), contrary to their MR distribution, where strong demonstratives may be preceded only by a definite noun: () a. sfântul loc acesta sacred. place this. ‘this sacred place’ (BB.:; Stan b) b. sfânta beseareca aceasta sacred. church. this. ‘this sacred church’ (CL.:r) () a. fiiulŭ mieu acesta (mortŭ era) son. my this. dead be... 2 ‘this son of mine (was dead)’ (CC .:) b. din ¸tara mea aceasta from country. my this. ‘from this country of mine’ (PI.~:v–r) OR examples like (a) are minimally different from MR structures like (), repeated here: () bietul băiatul pitiable. boy. ‘that pitiable boy’

ăla that.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

In the analysis of (), we have argued that object-level adjectives externally merge in the DP-periphery, above the definite N0, and undergo definiteness agreement with it (see the representation in ()). However, in OR, the postnominal strong demonstrative is not adjacent to a definite constituent (see ()–()), a distribution that shows that the complex NP undergoes snowballing – i.e. phrasal – movement across the demonstrative. The strong demonstrative is thus categorized as a head. The fact that phrasal movement across strong demonstratives is available in OR is further shown by the movement of definite APs across the demonstrative: () avea [sventele acealea mueri] had holy. those. women ‘those holy women had’ (CazV.:r)

... On the diachrony of the discussed patterns The discussion in the previous sections indicates that the MR specialization of adnominal demonstratives is already under way since the earliest writings of the th century (especially in the south). The most stable pattern involves weak demonstratives: weak demonstratives overwhelmingly occur as prenominal determiners (see ()); the structures in which they are postnominal are rare and restricted to th-century translations (see ()); and the same is true of the pronominal usage (see ()). Thus the elimination of the pronominal usage of weak demonstratives and the obligatory definiteness valuation by weak demonstratives indicate that these forms specialize as heads that value the [idef ] feature of D0, as the weak demonstrative is the sole bearer of definiteness in the DP. By contrast, the structures in which strong demonstratives co-occur with nondefinite nouns ((), ()) are rare. Rather we observe a strong preference for strong demonstratives to co-occur with a definite noun, either in prenominal position, as in (), or in postnominal position, as in (). One pattern that is not attested in the corpus I have surveyed is [non-definite noun + strong demonstrative]; its absence may be taken as evidence that strong demonstratives are unable to ensure definiteness valuation across an intervener. Importantly, there is a robust preference for strong demonstratives to occur in polydefinite constructions (see ()), a pattern preserved to the present day (see (a)). The almost obligatory co-occurrence of strong demonstratives with the definite article indicates that they are gradually bypassed in the process of definiteness valuation. Furthermore, the preservation of strong forms in the pronominal usage and the gradual rigidification of DP-internal word order in DPs with adnominal strong demonstratives (ultimately, only definite N0s may precede strong demonstratives) indicates that the strong forms specialize as phrases, which can either function as pronouns or be merged in a specifier of the extended nominal projection.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



In conclusion, the distinct distribution and the specific forms (according to the criteria in Diessel ) of weak and strong demonstratives indicate that these demonstratives gradually become categorially distinct elements.

... The postnominal demonstrative construction: A reanalysed appositional structure In order to account for the restructuring of the system of Romanian demonstratives, I advance the following diachronic scenario: (i) The weak forms, directly inherited from Latin, functioned both as pronouns and as adnominal determiners, as shown by the earliest Romanian written records. (ii) The strong forms, reinforced by  and  (see §...) – which presumably formed in an unattested stage of Romanian – were originally pronominal and had a deictic, exophoric usage (Manoliu ); it is not coincidental, then, that across Romance reinforced forms are mostly pronominal, both in the past and today (Ledgeway b, :–, b:–). (iii) The existence of formally distinct, yet categorially non-distinct demonstratives triggers a process of diachronic specialization: weak form specialize as heads, in accordance with van Gelderen’s () Head Preference Principle, while strong forms preserve their phrasal status. (iv) As an effect of their specialization as heads, weak forms are gradually excluded from pronominal usage and are retained only as adnominal determiners; vice versa, the phrasal nature of strong forms accounts for their usage as pronouns. (v) Finally, the adnominal usage of strong demonstratives results from the reanalysis (in the sense of Langacker  and Madariaga ) of a biphrasal appositional structure (Manoliu ; Vasilescu b) in a P-ambiguous context (Clark and Roberts ). The restructuring of the demonstrative system of Romanian is depicted in the scheme below:

weak forms: strong forms:

old system pronominal + adnominal pronominal

→ →

new system adnominal [+def] adnominal [–def] + pronominal

In what follows, I flesh out this hypothesis by bringing additional empirical evidence for some of the claims in (i)–(v) (others were already argued for) and by proposing a formal account of the reanalysis of pronominal strong forms as adnominal determiners. To begin with, there is distributional and statistical evidence that supports the hypothesis that strong demonstratives were originally pronouns.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

In OR, strong demonstratives could combine with personal pronouns in the third person, as in () (Manoliu ); and co-occurrence with personal pronouns in first- and second-person plural forms has been preserved to the present day (Giurgea c) (). Furthermore, in OR, strong demonstratives could directly precede proper names, as illustrated in (a)–(b), and could also occur postnominally (see (c)). In MR, only weak demonstratives may precede proper names (see (a)); strong demonstratives may co-occur with proper names, but only in postnominal position (see (b)). Assuming that proper names raise to D (cf. Longobardi ), the OR–MR variation in (a)–(b) versus (b) is of the same type as the one in (a) versus (b), discussed with reference to definite N-raising. () elŭ acesta he this. ‘he, this one’ (CC2.:) () noi / voi ăştia we you these. ‘~we / you here’

(MR)

() a. să nu hiu eu ačela Mesia ˘ . not be.. I that. God ‘that I should not be that God’ (CazV.:r) b. Acesta Cain era prea viclean this. Cain be... too cunning ‘this Cain was too cunning’ (PI.~:v) c. că Dumnezeu acesta, fiiulŭ that God this. son. ‘that this God, the son’ (CC2.:) () a. acel / that.

*acela that.

Mesia God

(MR)

b. Mesia acela God that. ‘that God’ Statistically, strong forms are overwhelmingly used as pronouns; in Manoliu’s ()12 survey,  per cent of the strong forms are pronouns, but strong forms are used as adnominal determiners only in  per cent of the cases. Table . represents a more comprehensive statistics, which confirms and strengthens Manoliu’s findings: in the earliest Romanian written records (even in the non-translated texts of DÎ) 12 Manoliu’s old Romanian corpus is the following: CC2.; CLRV ; CS; CV.–; Antim Ivireanu’s sermons; the Moldovan chronicles (CLM.–; NL.~–; ULM.~).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



TABLE . Pronominal vs adnominal usage of strong forms Pronominal usage of strong forms ((a)cesta, (a)cela, . . . )

Adnominal usage of strong forms ((a)cesta (a)cela, . . . )

Total number of strong demonstratives (%)

DÎ

 (.%)

 (.%)



PH.–

 (.%)

 (.%)



CV.– ( folios)

 (.%)

 (.%)



CC1.

 (.%)

 (.%)



CL.

 (.%)

 (.%)



Prav.

 (.%)

 (.%)



PO. ( folios)

 (%)

 (%)



MI.~

 (%)

 (%)



CazV. ( folios)*

 (.%)

Text

 (.%)



*  weak forms used as pronouns

strong forms are overwhelmingly used as pronouns; diachronically, there is a boost in the adnominal usage of strong forms. Also, Manoliu () analyses the exophoric vs endophoric usage of adnominal demonstratives. Her investigation reveals that prenominal demonstratives (i.e. the short forms) are endophoric in  per cent of the cases, while postnominal demonstratives (i.e. strong forms) are generally exophoric (they have an endophoric usage only in  per cent of the cases), leading her to conclude that the strong demonstrative is a déictique par excellence (Manoliu :). In light of their proposed origin (§...), it is not surprising that strong demonstratives are mostly pronominal and have an exophoric function:  and  enhance the exophoricity of the demonstratives through the locative meaning they contribute. Let us now turn to the emergence of the postnominal demonstrative construction. The hypothesis I defend is that this construction emerged through the reanalysis of an identifying apposition in a P-ambiguous context (see also Vasilescu b). Technically, the type of reanalysis advocated for here involves structural simplification: a biphrasal construction, represented by the anchor and the apposition, is replaced by a monophrasal extended projection consisting of a definite noun head and the adnominal strong demonstrative. In Heringa’s () account (whose origin can be found in Huddleston and Pullum :–), the apposition and its anchor are linked through a special relation, dubbed supplementation, which is based on a distinct type of Merge: sup-Merge. The special feature of sup-Merge is that it combines

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

the anchor and the apposition without placing them in a c‑command relation. In this account, appositions are therefore a special type of parenthetical. A parenthetical phrase (= ParP), which is integrated into the structure of the matrix by regular Merge, places the anchor in its specifier and the apposition in its complement position; the apposition is merged in the complement position via sup-Merge. Heringa’s structure for appositions in given in (a). His notation has been preserved: the asterisk (*) that accompanies the arrow (representing Merge) signals sup-Merge. The reanalysis of this biphrasal structure with special reference to the Romanian postnominal demonstrative construction is depicted in (b): the apposition is reanalysed as being a specifier (XP2) of the extended projection of the anchor (XP1). () a.

→

…ParP… Anchor XP1

Par0

b.

XP1 X1’

XP2 Par’ ** Apposition XP2

X10

Several comments are in order here. First, the fact that strong demonstratives may either precede, as in (), or follow, as in (), a (complex) definite DP shows that anchor and the apposition are interchangeable; when demonstratives precede a definite DP, the definite DP supplies the referential content for a complex XP1 + XP2 construction; alternatively, when demonstratives are preceded by a definite DP, the demonstrative acts as a locative anchor, contributing the identifying content. Second, if the assumption that strong demonstratives were originally pronouns is correct, then both XPs in (a) are DPs; the same phrasal status makes either of them a suitable candidate for either position (anchor or apposition). () a. aceasta moşia vândut-am this. property. sell.=.. ‘I sold this property’ (DÎ.–:XIII) b. Şi aceasta nebuniia vine and this. madness. comes ‘and this madness comes’ (FD.–:r) () a. ctitorul sfântului hram acesta founder. holy.. church this. ‘the founder of this holy church’ (CL.:v) b. în iezerul acela in mountain.lake. that. ‘in that mountain lake’ (A.:v)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives



Co-occurrence of two DPs is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for structural simplification to take place. Rather, while strong demonstratives have the ability to value definiteness in certain contexts (see examples () in §...), it is the existence of P‑ambiguous contexts that actually triggers reanalysis. These are the very contexts illustrated by examples () and (): in these contexts, a strong demonstrative co-occurs with a definite noun. One possible structure is (a), i.e. the appositional construction, and another possible structure is the structurally simplified structure (b). In (b), where the demonstrative and the definite noun are reanalysed as making up a hierarchically organized DP, definiteness valuation is ensured by the suffixal definite article, hence the demonstrative is interpreted as a [-def] deictic adjective. From this perspective, the pattern in () is the most relevant: as explained in §... (representation ()), this pattern is formally identical to the low definite article construction in which definiteness is valued across a prenominal intervener; in this situation, the strong demonstrative is ostensibly bypassed in the process of definiteness valuation. Thus structures of this type, which were particularly frequent in the th century and are also attested in the non-translated texts, determine the reanalysis of strong demonstratives as non-definite elements. Finally (and importantly), recall that, under a monophrasal analysis of () and (), the sole difference between these patterns is the movement of the definite noun (phrase) across the demonstrative in (), but not in (). Only (b) has been preserved in the passage to MR, as an effect of the condition that the bearer of definiteness occurs in DP-initial position – a condition that generalized in the transition from OR to MR (see chapter ). (The case illustrated in (a) is no longer available in MR because it violates minimality, see §....). Another P-ambiguous context that might favour structural simplification involves copular constructions such as (); in these constructions, the copula be occupies the clause-final position (as an effect of fronting the other constituents). The clauseinitial demonstrative may be read either (i) as an identificational (pronominal) demonstrative, the subsequent noun and adjective making up the subject-predicative complement, as in (a), or (ii) as an adnominal demonstrative that makes up a constituent with the noun (and the adjective is the predicative noun), as in (b). While not very frequent, copular constructions with a clause-final copula represent one of the word order options available in OR, deriving from the Old Church Slavonic influence on OR translations, but also from the different information structure options of OR (Dragomirescu :). () acesta omu rrimleanu easte (CV.–:v) this. man Roman be... a. [acesta] [omu rrimleanu] easte ‘this is the Roman man’ b. [acesta omu] [rrimleanu] easte ‘this man is Roman’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

The hypothesis that adnominal demonstratives develop from pronominal demonstratives through the reanalysis of an appositional constructions finds strong cross-linguistic support. Mithun () shows that adnominal demonstratives in Tuscarora are pronouns that co-occur with a coreferential noun in apposition. A similar point of view is expressed by Moravcsik () with reference to Hungarian adnominal demonstratives. Diessel (:) argues that, in Old English examples such as () (taken from Traugott :), the co-occurrence of the demonstrative se ‘that’ with the full DP heora cyning ‘their king’ in a strict V phase of English should be taken as evidence for a pronominal origin of English demonstrative determiners: the subject NP unusually occurs before the verb, ‘where it is joined to the coreferential demonstrative in some kind of appositional structure’ (Diessel :). () se heora cyning ongan ða singan that their king began then to.sing ‘He (that one), their king, then began to sing’ (Old English) Thus, with reference to English and other languages, Diessel (:) argues that structural simplification of an appositional nominal expression is one of the crosslinguistic sources of adnominal demonstratives: ‘[a]n appositional noun phrase, for instance, consists of two nominals, one of which might be a pronoun. When such a structure is reanalysed as a hierarchically organized NP the categorial statuses of the items involved in this structure change and new grammatical categories emerge’. The reanalysis of biphrasal structures as monophrasal structures is one of the most widespread paths of diachronic change, characterizing both the verbal and the nominal domain: English modals developed from the reanalysis of two TPs as a single extended projection (Roberts and Roussou :–), structures quantified by numerals in old Polish consisted of two distinct DPs that were subsequently reanalysed as single quantified DP (Rutkowski ), etc. The proposed diachrony of Romanian strong demonstratives conveniently accounts for the following phenomena: (i) the gradual tightening of the loose word order of DPs that contain strong demonstratives, a phenomenon that reaches its peak with the MR postnominal demonstrative construction, characterized by a fixed word order (the syntactic specialization of strong demonstratives as phrasal elements on the nominal extended projection restricts the DP-internal movement options: see §...); (ii) the gradual disappearance of the pronominal usage of weak forms: as soon as a competing new form (strong demonstratives) enters the system and encroaches upon the territory of the older form (weak demonstratives), the older form restricts its distribution and functions; in other words, the two competing forms undergo categorial specialization, the result of which is the preservation of both forms in the system.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



..  (i) The morphophonological distinction between weak and strong demonstratives reflects a syntactic distinction between these forms: weak forms are heads and strong forms are phrasal. (ii) The syntactic specialization of weak vs strong demonstratives consolidated diachronically, in the passage from OR to MR. (iii) Strong demonstratives, initially pronominal, were reanalysed as adnominal elements through the structural simplification of an appositional construction in a P-ambiguous context.

. THE EMERGENCE OF THE DETERMINER CEL Diachronically, a weak form of the distal demonstrative (i.e. cel) became detached from the class of demonstratives and grammaticalized as a freestanding definite determiner (Dimitrescu :) with distinct distributional and interpretative properties (Cornilescu ). From a Romance perspective, cel is an innovation of Romanian (Niculescu :–; Iliescu :; Ledgeway :–) that offers interesting insights for the grammaticalization of (Romance) definite determiners for the following reasons. To begin with, in some of its uses (e.g. the ‘adjectival article’ usage), cel does not have Romance counterparts (Reinheimer Rîpeanu :; Vasilescu a:). Second, its development represents a second and, more importantly, late phase in the grammaticalization of Romance demonstratives (Iliescu , ); as shown below, in the earliest Romanian written documents, cel had a double syntactic interpretation (demonstrative and article), and its detachment from the class of demonstratives took place in the first phase of OR (Iordan and Manoliu :). Hence this recurrent development (Lat.  > Romance/Romanian definite article; Romanian distal demonstrative > definite determiner cel) strengthens the hypothesis that language change is cyclical and involves the creation of new and parallel linguistic forms from almost identical material. Third, the role of the Balkan Sprachbund in the development of cel cannot be underestimated, as freestanding determiners with similar properties have emerged throughout the area (e.g. in Arvantovlaxika: Campos ; in Albanian: Campos ). Last but not least, the rich textual evidence to be reviewed below shows how the changes that take place on the one hand across the board in the diachrony of the DP, and on the other hand in the inventory and morphophonology of demonstratives contribute to the rise of cel. This section is structured as follows: first I briefly review the properties of cel in MR, then turn to its diachrony, revisiting the proposal first put forward in Nicolae (b) and supporting it with novel arguments and textual material.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel TABLE . The paradigm of the determiner cel Singular Masculine

Plural

Feminine

Masculine

Feminine

cei

celor

Nom-Acc

cel

cea

Gen-Dat

celui

celei

celor

..      Here I review the morphophonological and distributional properties of cel, which are relevant for the diachronic account (for a full analysis of cel in MR, see Nicolae c, with references), and advance a syntactic account of the cel-construction – namely an account adapted from Cornilescu and Nicolae (a).

... Cel vs demonstratives The paradigm of cel in MR is given in Table .. Although cel is labelled a ‘demonstrative article’ in GLR (, I:–), traditional grammarians have pointed out that it is actually not a demonstrative. In fact, it contrasts with both weak and strong demonstratives in the following respects: (i) S. Although cel historically derives from the etymologically complex distal demonstrative, the [+distal] locative feature has been bleached, hence cel does not encode a locative distinction. (ii) M. (a) Unlike in weak and strong demonstratives, in cel the initial vowel a- is always absent (compare acel/acela ‘that./’ with cel). (b) Unlike in strong forms, in cel the word-final particle -a is always absent (compare acela ‘that.’ with cel). Indeed, comparison of the feminine singular forms of cel and the corresponding distal demonstrative reveals that cel is related to the weak form: the augmentation of the strong form is obtained through a word internal change (acea [aʧa]  > aceea [aʧeja]  ‘that’); the feminine singular form of cel is cea [ʧa], which corresponds to the weak (acea), not to the strong demonstrative (aceea). (iii) D (the distribution of cel is more extensively discussed in the next section). (a) Although its origin is a weak form (which is exclusively prenominal in MR, see §..., and showed a strong preference for the prenominal position in OR, see §....), cel may occur both prenominally and postnominally. (b) Cel may license nominal ellipsis, a function reserved to strong demonstratives (Stan c).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



... Distributional properties Several contexts in which cel occurs may be distinguished. The feature characterizing cel in all its occurrences is its ‘semi-independent’ (i.e. clitic) nature (Manoliu Manea ): cel must always be accompanied by a constituent to its right. Cel is inserted as a last resort freestanding definite article in DPs where the first position is occupied by elements that cannot be suffixed by the definite article (cardinal and ordinal numerals, as in (a)–(b); see Cornilescu ).13 () a. cele două .. two. ‘the two girls’

fete girls.

b. cel de-al doilea .. second ‘the second child’

copil child

The second important context in which cel occurs is the ‘adjectival article’ context. Cel is postnominal, being preceded by a definite DP, and introduces a wide range of constituents: qualifying adjectives, including adjectival participles, as in (), PPs, as in (), and relative clauses (RCs), as in () (PPs and RCs are favoured under nominal ellipsis). () a. maşinile cele cars. . ‘the old cars’ b. fiul cel son. . ‘the lost son’

vechi old pierdut lost

() (casa) cea din deal house. . on hill ‘the house/the one on the hill

13

Quantifying adjectives, also occurring in this construction, display a mixed categorization (Pană Dindelegan ; Cornilescu ): they behave either as quantifiers (ia), combining with cel, or as adjectives, taking over the suffixal definite article (ib). (i)

a. cei ..

foarte mult¸i very many

frat¸i ai brothers ..

frat¸i b. (foarte) mult¸ii very many. brothers ‘Mary’s many brothers’

Mariei Mary.

ai Mariei .. Mary.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

() Cecilie fu cea care luă telecomanda Cecile was . who took remote-control. ‘Cecile was the one who took the remote control’ (Anne Holt, Moartea demonului) In contrast to the postnominal demonstrative construction, when cel is postnominal, it can be preceded by a complex DP; this indicates that there is phrasal movement across cel: () maşina nemt¸ească cea car. German . ‘the new German car’ () fratele meu brother. my ‘my older brother’

cel .

nouă new mare big

Cel also appears in the structure of proper names, either as part of a conventionalized complex proper name (example ()) or as a means of introducing a contextually identifying property of the proper name (example ()). () Ivan cel Groaznic ‘Ivan the Terrible’ () Maria cea mică Mary . little ‘younger Mary’ (as opposed to an ‘older Mary’, contextually salient) Cel also serves as a formative element of the superlative; in spite of the fact that it forms a constituent with the adjective and the degree phrase (Cornilescu and Giurgea :–), when the superlative is prenominal, the head noun is non-definite and cel values definiteness (see ()), as in the freestanding definite article construction in (). The superlative constituent can also be postnominal (see ()); this pattern is an adjectival article construction in which cel is preceded by a definite phrasal constituent. () cea .

mai more

importantă important

performant¸ă a mea performance  my

() performant¸a mea cea mai performance. my . more ‘my most important performance’

importantă important

Also important for the syntactic analysis of this construction (and see also §...) are the contexts in which cel is disallowed. Except for the prenominal superlative in (), cel cannot directly precede a (complex) noun (phrase) (see (a)); in this context, definiteness valuation is ensured by the suffixal article (see (b)).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel () a. *cel .

om man

b. omul / man. ‘the man’

/ *cel .

bun good

bunul om good. man ‘the good man’

/

om / *cel man . omul man.

om man



bun good

bun good

Furthermore, cel cannot introduce exclusively postnominal constituents such as relational adjectives (example (a)) and arguments of the noun (example (b)), NP-adjectives of the former type (example ()), and disallows polydefiniteness (example ()) in MR. () a. *maşina car.

nemt¸ească German

cea .

b. *dependent¸a dependence. () *ministrul minister.

cea .

cel .

() locul cel place. . ‘the holy place’

de on

alcool alcohol

fost former

sfânt / holy

*sfântul holy.

Finally, Romanian makes a strict distinction between two similar processes: substantivization and nominal ellipsis (Cornilescu and Nicolae ; Nicolae d; Dragomirescu and Nicolae ). Substantivization is a lexically conditioned process that entails the incorporation of a silent contentful noun, e.g. , , etc. (Kayne ). By contrast, nominal ellipsis represents the discourse-conditioned deletion of a noun (phrase). Unlike in French and Ibero-Romance, which employ the freestanding definite article to license both processes (Sleeman ), in Romanian the suffixal definite article licenses substantivization, as in (), and cel heads nominal elliptical structures, as in ().14 That we are dealing with two distinct constructions is shown by the fact that they are not interchangeable.

14

Italian and most Italo-Romance varieties also make a distinction between substantivization and nominal ellipsis through the usage of different determiners: the definite article licenses substantivization (see (i)), and the demonstrative (a formally distal type, yet one devoid of distal meaning) or the definite article licenses ellipsis (cf. (ii); Adam Ledgeway, p.c.). Here are the Italian counterparts of (b) and (): (i) J.M.W. Turner preferiva il giallo. ‘J.M.W. Turner preferred the colour yellow’ (ii) la mela rossa e quella/la gialla. ‘the red apple and the yellow one’

= (b) = ()

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

() a. galbenul yellow. ‘the colour yellow’ b. J.M.W. Turner prefera galbenul / J.M.W. Turner prefer... yellow. ‘J.M.W. Turner preferred the colour yellow’ () mărul roşu şi cel galben apple. red and  yellow ‘the red apple and the yellow one’

/

*cel galben.  yellow

*galbenul yellow.

... Syntactic analysis and its consequences As shown by the word order and, more importantly, by definiteness differences between the prenominal freestanding definite article construction and the postnominal adjectival article construction discussed above, there are differences in the derivation of these constructions. The syntactic analysis given here is minimal enough to serve the purposes of the diachronic analysis that follows (for an extensive analysis, see Cornilescu and Nicolae a); the derivation of the superlative is beyond the purposes of our work. The freestanding definite article construction is not problematic (see ()). The prenominal constituent, a quantifier, is unable to bear the definite article (see (a)), hence local definiteness valuation is not possible. At the same time, since quantifiers in Romanian undergo gender agreement, a ϕ-chain is established between the D-position, the quantifier, and the head noun, hence the quantifier acts as a defective intervener and disallows definiteness valuation across it by a lower definite article (b). Thus, given the impossibility of alternative means of valuing definiteness (example ()), cel merges directly in D0 as a last-resort definite article and ensures definiteness valuation (example ()). () cele două fete . two girls [DP [D0 cele [QP [CardP două] Q0 [NumP/NP fete]]]] () a. *două-le two.- b. *două two.

fete girls.

fete-le girls-.

By contrast, in the adjectival article construction, cel co-occurs with a definite phrase. In order to accommodate the presence of two distinct definite determiners, I follow the analysis in Cornilescu and Nicolae (a, ) and adopt the split-DP structure

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



for the adjectival article construction (introduced above, in §....). Recall that in the split-DP structure there is an inner D-position and an outer D-position. The suffixal definite article values the [idef ] feature of Dinner; cel merges in Douter; and, just as in Rizzi’s () split-CP analysis, the space between Dinner and Douter is a periphery domain that accommodates pragmatically marked DP‑internal constituents. The interpretation of the adjectival article construction (briefly discussed below) shows that cel is endowed with a specificity feature and that constituents preceded by cel are contrastive. Furthermore, the constituents that appear in the DP-periphery directly merge in this space. The derivation of a complex adjectival article construction is depicted in (). In the first step of the derivation, the [idef ] feature of Dinner is valued against the suffixal definite article (see (a)). The next step of the derivation, (b), consists in the merger of cel (in Douter) and of the periphery constituent, followed by phrasal movement (presumably of the snowballing type) of DPinner to Spec,DPouter. Note that, upon definiteness valuation against Dinner, the [u+def ] feature of the head noun is no longer visible for probing by higher heads; the [idef] of Douter feature is valued by the merger of cel. ()

maşina cea nouă car.def cel.f new ‘the new car’

a.

DPinner D0 [idef][+def] agree definiteness valuation

NP N0 maşina [u+def]

DPouter

b. DPinner

D’outer

maşina [u+def]

D0outer [idef] [+def] [ispec] [+spec] cea [u+def] [u+spec]

FP AP

nouă

F’ F0 [+contrast]

tDPinnner

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

Consequences. The adjectives occurring in the adjectival article construction are DP-adjectives with an object-level interpretation (they have a DP in their scope). Hence, adjectives with kind-level semantics are excluded from the cel-construction. This is the case of relational adjectives (example (a) = (a)). These adjectives are subsective, they denote subkinds and can only merge low, in the lexical NP-domain. They may be pied-piped by the definite constituent across cel, as in (b), but cannot directly merge in the DP-periphery. () a. *maşina car.

cea .

nemt¸ească German

b. maşina nemt¸ească cea car. German . ‘the new German car’

nouă new

The exclusion of former-type adjectives (example ()) has the same cause: as discussed in §...., these adjectives, too, are kind-level intensional modifiers and can only take an NP in their scope. The exclusion of nominal arguments (see (b)) is also due to their merger site: in order to be thematically marked, they merge low, in the lexical NP-domain. The DP periphery is reserved for constituents that directly merge in (Spec,)FP. That constituents directly merge in the DP-periphery and do not access this position via movement is shown by the absence of polydefineteness effects in the cel-construction. Recall that the postnominal demonstrative construction optionally allows the realization of the definite article on the postnominal adjective, as in (a); this is possible because adjectives in the postnominal demonstrative construction merge below D (Dinner) and may undergo definiteness agreement with the definite noun before definiteness valuation against the [idef ] feature of D0. By contrast, in the cel-construction, the [u+def ] feature of the head noun is no longer visible for probing, as it has been deleted against the [idef ] feature of Dinner. Since the adjective merges above Dinner, there is no active [u+def ] goal for definiteness agreement of the prenominal adjective in the cel-construction. Polydefiniteness is hence disallowed (see (b) and also ()). () a.

fata asta girl. this. ‘this little girl’

mică / little

mica little.

b.

fata cea girl. . ‘the little girl’

mică / little

*mica little.

From an interpretative perspective, the cel-construction with an overt nominal head has a particular information structure (for a detailed account and for cel-headed

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



nominal ellipsis, see Cornilescu and Nicolae a:–, :–). The definite noun (phrase) is interpreted as contextually salient, i.e. [+specific], and the modifier introduced by cel expresses an identifying property of this contextually salient constituent (Strawson ) – that is, a property that is the most salient in the given context (Tasmowski-De Ryck ). Attributes are arranged on a pragmatic scale (Fauconnier ) in ascending order of strength (i.e. how characteristic they are of the referent) or of contextual saliency. The attribute introduced by cel is the best identifier on the pragmatic scale: a perceptually accessible property, as in (), a familiar attribute of the referent, as in (), or a stereotypical property, as in (). This makes the cel-modifier inherently contrastive and emphatic, as it is set in opposition to all the other attributes on the scale. () maşina cea nouă, nu car. . new not ‘the new car, not the old one’ () fata cea mică / girl. . little ‘the youngest daughter’ () oceanul cel ocean. . ‘the blue ocean’

cea .

veche old

fata mică / girl. little ‘the little girl’

mica little.

fată girl

albastru blue

..    :         In the first OR period (until mid-th c.), the form cel had a double interpretation, as it displays both demonstrative and article distributional and interpretative properties. The first four subsections bring evidence for this claim. The final subsection proposes a formal account of the changes (there is diachronic change internal to OR as well, besides the OR to MR changes). Here too I will continue to gloss the cel-forms with , keeping in mind that a distal demonstrative reading is also available (and obvious) in some of the cases.

... (A)cel > cel or (a)cela > cel? On synchronic grounds, the fact that cel is related to the weak form of the etymologically complex distal demonstrative has been highlighted above (§...). There is also OR evidence that strong forms without the initial particle a- (i.e. cela) do not exhibit the ‘semi-independent’ behaviour characteristic of cel, as they can also function pronominally in the absence of a DP-internal constituent to their right (example ()).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

() a. ceia-u dzis că nu e acolo those.=.. say. that not is there ‘those (men) said that it is not there’ (DÎ.:CXII) b. se agiungă unii ca ceia ˘ . reach.. some like those. ‘(that God’s anger) would reach some like those’ (Prav.:v) By contrast, weak forms without the initial particle a- (i.e. cel) are always semiindependent, in the sense that they must be followed by a DP-internal constituent. The ‘independent’ pronominal usage of non-prosthetic weak forms is sporadic, almost unattested in the corpus examined (only two examples were identified in PH.–:v,r). This conclusion is at odds with traditional scholarship, which considers that non-prosthetic forms (i.e. cel(a)) and prosthetic forms (i.e. acel(a)) are functionally equivalent (see §..), as the latter can function pronominally (see () and §....), while the former cannot. () acel e frate mie that. be... brother me. ‘That is my brother’ (CT.–:r) Prosthesis with a- thus makes a difference, allowing weak forms prefixed by a- to function as pronouns. The same is true for proximal demonstratives; weak forms ((a)cest ‘that.’) may function prior to specialization as independent pronouns only prefixed by a-, but not otherwise. () Aceste zise marele împărat Alexandru these.w say... great. emperor Alexander ‘The great emperor Alexander said these (words)’ (A.:v) The facts reviewed in this section are relevant for the diachrony of cel, as they show that there is (at least) one context that is not common for cel and the other demonstrative forms.

... Polydefiniteness As observed in §..., weak forms prefixed by a- (which are unambiguously demonstratives) strongly disallow polydefiniteness. The same is true of cel-forms (Vasiliu :; Stan ): weak cel-forms disallow the multiple realization of the definite article, as illustrated in (), while strong forms (presumably demonstratives) favour it (contrast ()). The tendency to employ the form cel in complex DPs in which the postnominal adjective is non-definite, and the corresponding (demonstrative) form in polydefinite DPs was under way since the th century (Diaconescu ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



() a. cugetul lui cel rău thought. his  mean ‘his mean thought’ (DÎ.:XLIV) b. frat¸ii cei mici brothers.  little ‘the little brothers’ (CC2.:) c. înt¸elepciunea cea veacinicî wisdom.  eternal ‘the eternal wisdom’ (CazV.:IIv) d. boiarii cei mari boyards.  big ‘the grand boyards’ (Catastih.:r; Stan ) () a. la locul cela strimtul at place. that. narrow. ‘at that narrow place’ (DÎ.:I) b. fiuluˇ lui cela mai marele son. his that. more old. ‘that older son of his’ (CC2.:) The opposite patterns are also attested, but they are much rarer ((), ()); we observe a preference for cel to be followed by a definite adjective when the head noun is a proper name. () Domnul cel tarele lord.  strong. ‘the strong Lord’ (PH.–:r) () besereca ceaea sfântă church. that. holy ‘that holy church’ (PH.–:v)

... Distribution Despite the clear tendency towards specialization shown in the previous sections, there are contexts in which the distribution of OR cel is ostensibly different from that of MR cel. Cel may directly precede a non-definite noun, as in (), a non-definite noun + adjective, as in (), or a non‑definite adjective + noun, as in (). This is the distribution of a bona fide demonstrative, and it is strictly ungrammatical in MR cel (cf. ()): () cel grâu  wheat ‘the/that wheat’ (DÎ.:IX)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

()

cel fecior curvariu  son fornicating ‘the/that fornicating son’ (Ev.:)

()

cea bună nădejde  good hope ‘the/that good hope’ (FT.–:v)

Cel also retains its locative distal meaning in the th century, as shown by its coexistence with weak proximal demonstratives without the prosthetic a- (i.e. cestforms) within the same text; this indicates that a proximal–distal distinction between these forms is still active to a certain extent. Notice that the distribution of cel and cest in ()–() is the same as in ()–(): the distribution of a demonstrative. ()

a. cele grele pedepse a tale  hard penalties . your ‘your hard penalties / those hard penalties of yours’ (FT.–:r) b. ceastă credint¸ă this. faith ‘this faith’ (FT.–:v)

()

a. celŭ feciorŭ micŭ  son little ‘the/that little son’ (CC2.:) b. avut¸iia cestui pământŭ wealth. this.. land ‘the wealth of this land’ (CC2.:)

Cel may directly precede relational adjectives in OR (Stan b; Brăescu and Dragomirescu ), which contrasts with its usage in MR (cf. (a)): ()

a. birăul cel rumânescu mayor.  Romanian ‘the Romanian mayor’ (DÎ.–:XCVII) b. mânra cea dereaptă a hand.  right .. ‘my right hand’ (PH.–:r)

mea my

On the other hand, cel shows the MR distribution in texts from the first OR period. In examples such as (), cel is clearly a freestanding definite article: the quantificational DP cei  filosofi (‘the six philosophers’) refers anaphorically to the discourse-old indefinite DP  filosofi (‘six philosophers’), and cel is devoid of distal demonstrative meaning:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel ()



Şi luo Alexandru de la ei  filosofi şi and take... Alexander from them six philosophers and ieşi din ostrov [ . . . ]. Şi-i leave... from island and=... îmbrăcă pre cei  filosofi [ . . . ] dress...   six philosophers ‘And Alexander took six philosophers from them and left the island [ . . . ]. And he dressed up the six philosophers and [ . . . ]’ (A.:v)

The ability of cel to introduce an identifying attribute is captured in the earliest Romanian written records (see ()); notice that there are situations in which the head of the DP, a definite noun, follows the sequence cel + modifier (e.g. (b)); this distribution is important for the syntax of the adjectival article construction. ()

a. pentru slujba domniii-lui cea credincioasă for service. highness..=his  faithful ‘for his highness’s faithful service’ (DÎ.:XXXVI) b. cel mare domnul  big Lord. ‘the great Lord’ (FT.–:r)

The licensing of stereotypical attributes, an unambiguous function of MR cel, is also attested in the OR writings; witness the repetitive usage of the phrase in () in ÎSL.–: ()

râul cel de foc river.  of fire ‘the river of fire’ (ÎSL.–,  times)

... Competition with the suffixal definite article There are three phenomena that show how cel diachronically encroaches on the usages of the suffixal definite article, ultimately taking over its function in these configurations. Recall that MR makes a strict difference between substantivization and nominal ellipsis, the former being licensed by the suffixal definite article, and the latter by cel (e.g. galbenul yellow. ‘the colour yellow’ / cel galben  yellow ‘the yellow one’). By contrast, in the oldest Romanian writings both phenomena are licensed by the definite article (Stan , ; Dragomirescu and Nicolae ; Pană Dindelegan ). The MR variant of the OR structures in () and () systematically contains cel as a licensor of nominal ellipsis instead of the suffixal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

article (note that the suffixal article attaches even to adverbs in nominal elliptical structures in OR):15 ()

a. întăreaşte derpt¸ii Domnul strengthens... righteous.. Lord ‘Lord strengthens the righteous’ (PH.–:v) b. cei 

()

drept¸i righteous

(MR counterpart)

a. Şi aceia sănt apoii ce and those. be.. then.. who vor fi întăii .. be. first.. ‘And the last will be the first’(CT.–:v) b. ( . . . )

cei de apoi ( . . . )  of then

cei 

dintâi first

(MR counterpart)

This diachrony had been under way since OR; cel gradually replaced the suffixal article as a licensor of nominal ellipsis especially from . Here are two examples: (i) in a later version of the same passage (example ()), the suffixal definite article is replaced by cel (see Stan :); (ii) in a text that marks the separation between the first and the second OR periods (example ()), both strategies are used, with the very same remnant (see Dragomirescu in press). ()

a. nooa new. ‘the new one’ (CT.–:v) b. cel nou  new ‘the new one’ (BB.:)

()

a. a dirept¸ilor .. righteous... ‘of the righteous’ (ŞT.:) b. a celor dirept¸i .. .. righteous. ‘of the righteous’ (ŞT.:)

15 The changes concerning nominal eliptical structures with an active participle remnant and a suffixal article licensor (example (ia)) are spectacular, as they have been fully replaced by a RC headed by cel (example (ib)):

miei, întrat¸i luntru (i) a. Credzut¸ii believe..... my enter. inside ‘You, those who believe in me, enter inside’ (FT.–:r) b. cei care credet¸i în mine ‘those who believe in me’

MR (counterpart)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



Note that, under nominal ellipsis, strong forms co-occur with an adjective suffixed by the definite article (example (a)), while weak cel-forms do not (example (b)): ()

a. e ceia bogat¸ii and those. rich... ‘and those rich’ (CV.–:r) b. Pomeneşte ( . . . ) pre cei buni mention..   good.. ‘mention ( . . . ) the good ones’ (DDL.:)

A second function taken over by cel from the suffixal definite article is the marking of definiteness in DPs with prenominal ordinal numerals; constructions with an enclitic article suffixed onto the ordinal numeral itself, as in () (Stan ), or on the head noun in a low definite article construction, as in () (Nicolae b), have been replaced by cel-constructions: ()

a. într-a treia decadă [ a a doauăi cărt¸i a lui] in-third decade .. second.. book .. his ‘in the third decade of his second book’ (CIst.–:r; Stan ) b. ( . . . ) a celei de a doua cărt¸i a lui (MR counterpart) .. . second book .. his

()

a. arătarea [a dooa venireei lui] showing. second coming.. his ‘the showing of his second coming’ (CC2.:) b. ( . . . ) a celei de a doua veniri a lui (MR counterpart) .. . second coming .. his

Finally, we can see how cel systematically encroaches on the territory of the suffixal definite article in the expression of the superlative. In OR, the superlative either has the same marking as the comparative (and the superlative reading is given by the partitive complement, as in (a), or deduced from context) or is licensed by the suffixal definite article, as in (b) (Giurgea b:–). ()

a. Şi şarpele era mai alnic de toate and snake. be... more cunning of all jigăniile pământului beasts. earth.. ‘and the snake was the most cunning of all the beasts of the earth’ (PO.:) b. mai bunul pâmântului Eghipetului more good. land.. Egypt.. eu voiu da voao I .. give. you. ‘I will give you the best land of Egypt’ (PO.:)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

Structures containing cel, string-identical with the MR superlative, are available in the first OR period (see (a)). However, the strong forms may also precede the comparative marker (compare (b)), and it is not clear whether this is a genuine superlative or a comparative preceded by a demonstrative (Brăescu :); this ambiguity is obvious in examples such as (c), where – taking into account the preceding context – it is clear that the cel-construction has two readings (superlative/ demonstrative + comparative). ()

a. feciorul cel mai mic son.  more little ‘the youngest/that younger son’ (CazV.:v) b. preut¸ii ceia mai-marii priests. that. more-old. ‘those older priests’ (CL.:v) c. Un omŭ aveà doi feciori. Şi zise a man have... two sons and said celŭ mai tânărŭ părintelui  more young father.. ‘A man had two sons. And the youngest / that younger one said to his dad’ (CC2.:)

... The diachronic development of cel The detachment of cel from the paradigm of demonstratives and its grammaticalization as an article proceeds in tandem with two other diachronic changes, they themselves developing simultaneously: (i) the head/phrase specialization of demonstrative, discussed at length in the first part of the chapter (§..): originating from a weak, non-augmented form, cel becomes unambiguously categorized as a head; (ii) the generalization of a-prosthesis with demonstratives, a follow-up of which is the disappearance of proximal cest(a)-forms and thus the elimination of the locative distinction between cel(a)-forms and cest(a)-forms. Let us start with the latter phenomenon. Table . shows that before  non‑prosthetic weak demonstratives are well represented, in certain writings even outnumbering the forms prosthesized by a-. However, shortly after , non-prosthetic forms sharply fall into disuse ( non-prosthetic forms to  prosthetic forms in VRC.) and are completely eliminated by the end of OR ( to  in Bert.). Thus the locative opposition between cel fecior (‘that son’) and cestui pământ (‘of this land’) (example ()) disappears after . The head status of cel (in accordance to its weak status) and its dual demonstrative– article nature indicate that two merger sites are available for cel in the extended nominal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



TABLE . The rise of a-prosthesis with weak proximal demonstratives (cest vs acest ‘this’) Non-prosthetic proximal weak demonstratives (cest, cestui . . . )

Prosthetic proximal weak demonstratives (acest, acestui . . . )

Total number of proximal weak demonstratives (%)

 (.%)

 (.%)



CC .

 (.%)

 (.%)



Prav.

 (.%)

 (.%)



PO.

 (.%)

 (.%)



VRC.

 (.%)

 (.%)



DDL.

 (.%)

 (.%)



Sind.

 (.%)

 (.%)



ULM.~

 (.%)

 (.%)



NL.~–

 (%)

 (%)



Bert.

 (%)

 (%)



Text DÎ 1

projection: Dem0, potentially followed by movement to D0, just as in MR weak demonstratives (see (a)); and D0 (see (b)). These structures coexist until around  (cf. also Giusti ,  on the  > Romance definite article analysis). ()

a.

b.

DP D0

DemP Dem0 cel

…

DP D0 cel

As soon as weak cest-forms disappear and the cel/cest opposition is jettisoned, the [+distal] feature of cel is also bleached, cel undergoes a familiar Move > Merge type of (upward) reanalysis (Roberts and Roussou :), and only structure (b) remains active for cel. Besides the local developments affecting the diachrony of the demonstrative system, there are also two changes taking place across the board in the diachrony of the DP that played an important part in the grammaticalization of cel. The first of these two changes is the tightening of conditions on definiteness valuation: definiteness valuation across an intervener becomes gradually restricted, ultimately disappearing by the end of OR. This change, witnessed through the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

gradual elimination of the low definite article, is documented in detail in Cornilescu and Nicolae (c) and in chapter  here. With prenominal adjectives, this locality condition is resolved through the suffixation of the definite article on the adjective, which ensures visibility for probing by D0. However, the morphosyntax of cardinal numerals raises a different problem, already sketched in sections ...–...: on the one hand, cardinals are morphosyntactically unable to bear the definite article; on the other hand, cardinal numerals themselves may value the [idef] feature of D0 themselves as [-definite]. Hence, to solve this locality problem, the freestanding article cel merges in D0 and values definiteness. The low definite article construction with a prenominal cardinal numeral intervener has only one witness in our th-century texts, namely example () (but note that this construction is also available with ordinal numerals: cf. (a)). On the other hand, the use of cel as a freestanding definite article is well documented throughout the first OR period, of which () is an example: ()

a. deade Dumnezeu [zeace cuvintele give... God ten words. ‘God gave his ten commandments’ (CCat.:r)

()

a. tremise [cei doi ucenici ai sent...  two disciples  ‘he sent his two apprentices’ (CC2.:) b. de ce sânt buni [cei şapte why be... good  seven ‘why are the seven lambs good? (PO.:)

sale] his

lui] his miei] ( . . . )? lambs

Presumably, on the basis of this construction, cel extended to the superlative, an extension consolidated by the existence of P-ambiguous structures involving cel + the comparative (see example ()). Both the freestanding definite article construction and the prenominal superlative involve a simple, un-split DP projection. By contrast, the adjectival article construction involves a split-DP with a Dinner and a Douter layer. Hence one needs to identify the factors that triggered the splitting of the DP so as to accommodate cel in the higher D0outer head. Thus, there is a second significant diachronic change in DP syntax, which is responsible for the development of the adjectival article construction: the gradual reduction of the accessibility of the edge of the Romanian DP. As shown in chapter  (and in Brăescu and Dragomirescu  Brăescu, Dragomirescu, and Nicolae ; Nicolae ), it becomes increasingly harder to access the left edge of DPs (and of APs, for that matter). This change characterizes not only Romanian; rather, it is part of the gradual reduction of ‘pragmatically driven word order . . . resulting from the greater accessibility of topic- and focus-fronting positions situated in the left edge of individual phasal projections’ (Ledgeway :–) – a phenomenon that took

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

The emergence of the determiner cel



place across the board in the passage from Latin to Romance. Technically, the option of moving an XP across Dinner becomes unavailable. As shown in §..., the role of the adjectival article cel is to open up the DP left periphery, as an alternative strategy for accessing this space (recall that the postnominal superlative is also an adjectival article construction, as the adjective in the superlative is preceded by a definite noun phrase: cf. ()). Hence there is a second reanalysis of cel, from the lower D0inner to the higher D0outer. There are several pieces of evidence to support this second step of syntactic reanalysis. The first one is the existence of the constructions in (), in which a [cel + nondefinite adjective] sequence precedes a complex definite DP (in (a)–(b), a definite noun (in (c)), and a proper name (in (d)). The only difference between the OR () and the MR counterparts in () is the movement of the definite noun phrase across cel, to Spec,DPouter. The non-definiteness of the prenominal adjectives indicates that they directly merge above DPinner: they do not undergo definiteness agreement, because the [u+def ] feature of the noun is inactive upon Agree with and valuation of [idef ] in D0inner. The OR–MR word order difference in ()–() is of exactly the same type as that described for strong demonstratives with definite nouns (() = () in §...) and presupposes movement of the definite constituent to the edge of the DP in a later phase of Romanian. ()

a. (pentru) cel drag [fiiul tău] for  dear son. your ‘for your dear son Jesus’ (PO.:)

Isus Jesus

b. cea strălucită [venirea lui]  illustrious arrival. his ‘his illustrious arrival’ (SA.:r) c. cel mare domnul  big lord. ‘the great Lord’ (FT.–:r) d. cel tânăr [Ştefanit¸ă Vodă] .. young Stephen Prince ‘Prince Stephen the young’ (DPar.:I.r) ()

a. b. c. d.

[fiiul tău]i cel drag [fiiul tău]i Isus [venirea lui]i cea strălucită [venirea lui]i domnuli cel mare domnuli [Ştefanit¸ă Vodă]i cel tânăr [Ştefanit¸ă Vodă]i

()

a. aceasta moşia this. property. ‘this property’ (DÎ.–:XIII) b. moşiai aceasta moşiai

(MR counterparts)

(MR counterpart)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Demonstrative specialization and the emergence of the determiner cel

A second important piece of evidence that verifies the hypothesis that there is a D0inner to D0outer reanalysis of non-quantificational cel is given by the preservation of cel + relational adjectives constructions almost until the end of OR, as witnessed in example (). This distribution is relevant only if we take into account the following facts: first, these examples are from the late phase of the second OR period in which, as argued above, cel is devoid of demonstrative meaning; second, given their properties, relational adjectives cannot access the left edge of the DP (i.e. the space between Dinner and Douter). Hence these examples are compatible only with an analysis in which cel occupies Dinner and is preceded by a (phrasal, cf. (a)) definite constituent. ()

a. letopiset¸ul nostru cel moldovenescu chronicle. our  Moldovan ‘our Moldovan chronicle’ (ULM.~:A-fv) b. solul cel leşescu emissary.  Polish ‘the Polish emissary’ (NL.~–:) c. pe scaunul cel împărătesc on chair.  imperial ‘on the imperial chair’ (Bert.:v)

Thus the last process characterizing the development of cel, which took place in early modern Romanian (i.e. after ), consists in the further syntactic specialization of the adjectival article cel: its reanalysis as a head that exclusively merges in the high Douter head.

..  A conspiracy of local changes affecting the demonstrative system and of global changes in the syntax of the Romanian DP led to the specialization of cel with two distinct functions: a freestanding definite article; and an adjectival article. My analysis revealed that the diachrony of cel consisted of two distinct steps of reanalysis (see ()); every stage is characterized by a transitional phase, in which an old grammar coexists with the innovative grammar. ()

Phases in the reanalysis of cel a. Dem0 > D0 (/Dinner) (early OR) b. D0inner > D0outer (early MR)

The development of cel brings support from the domain of determiners for the hypothesis that language change is cyclical and involves grammaticaticalization and renewal (Mithun ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

6 Diachronic features of Romanian in a broader comparative setting In spite of the fact that ‘from the very beginning of the sixteenth century, the syntactic structure of Romanian was already established in its essentials, at least with respect to the verbal and clausal domains’ (Pană Dindelegan and Dragomirescu :), the previous chapters have shown that significant syntactic changes—in this particular case, word order changes—can take place over the relatively short time span of a few centuries. This chapter summarizes the main results of the book, highlighting the novel theoretical and empirical facts brought about by the word order changes that occurred in the transition from OR to MR, and showing how the diachrony of Romanian may contribute to a better understanding of the history of the Romance languages on the one hand and of the Balkan Sprachbund on the other, and to syntactic theory and syntactic change in general.

. PARAMETERS OF ‘HEIGHT’: V-MOVEMENT AND N-MOVEMENT A well-known generalization holding for most of the modern Romance languages (see Schifano , with references) concerns the position of the verb along the clausal spine: modern Romance languages, Romanian included, reflect neither the low verb movement option typical of archaic and classical Latin (and of embedded clauses in late Latin) nor the V-fronting option of the innovative late Latin grammar, but rather a third option: generalized V-to-I raising. The extensive examination of two phenomena residually found in OR—relaxed V (chapter ), mostly specific to matrix clauses, and discontiguous verbal clusters (chapter ), generally found in embedded clauses—supports the hypothesis that V-to-I raising had different sources depending on clause type. Thus, one major respect in which MR is different from OR is the verb raising parameter: with the exception of [+directive] clauses that still show V-to-C movement, MR is characterized by generalized V-to-I raising, contrasting with OR, which showed a more extensive usage of V-to-C movement in matrix Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. First edition. Alexandru Nicolae. © Alexandru Nicolae . First published  by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Diachronic features of Romanian in a broader comparative setting

clauses and residual instances of low verb movement (movement internal to the vP-domain) in embedded clauses. A similar development also occurred in nominal phrases, which are characterized in OR by a more extensive usage of the prenominal domain: while certain prenominal structures can be derived by fronting constituents to the edge of the DP, there are structures (e.g. prenominal relational adjectives) in which low N(P)-raising must be invoked. Just as in the case of verb movement, one important diachronic development is higher N(P)-movement along the extended nominal projection, which leads to the obligatorily postnominal position of relational adjectives in MR. To sum up, one important parameter subject to diachronic variation and change is the position of lexical heads in their extended nominal projection, i.e. the height of verb and noun raising.

. LANGUAGE CONTACT: TRANSLATIONS AND THE BALKAN SPRACHBUND There are two respects in which the issue of language contact proves to be relevant for the diachrony of Romanian: as language contact by means of translation and as areal language contact. The enclisis of the reflexive clitic se (and the increased frequency of pronominal enclisis in general) in OR has been considered ‘a foreign syntactic feature’ with an Old Church Slavonic source (Avram  []:; Stan b:–, with references); recall that most th-century Romanian writings are religious translations with a Slavonic source. The extensive examination of cliticization patterns in chapter  has revealed that the enclisis of reflexive se is more frequent in translations from Slavonic. However, an important body of data has been examined showing that there is evidence for a lower, v-oriented cliticization site, which is neither limited to translations nor employed exclusively with the reflexive se. The enclisis of se therefore falls under a more general syntactic option found in OR (a lower cliticization site), and the Slavonic influence only enhances its frequency. A conclusion similar to that drawn by Poletto (: ch. ) in the analysis of old Italian can be formulated in this respect too: language contact may influence the frequency of a certain phenomenon on condition that the contact phenomenon is grafted, albeit partially, onto a parametric option of the target language. This strategy was adopted by medieval translators in order to resolve the tension between faithfully following the foreign original source (the medieval manner of translating sacred texts) and aligning with the constraints of the target language. The diachrony of Romanian is also important from the perspective of areal language contact, as Romanian is one of the Balkan languages. Of the phenomena discussed in this book, two are relevant in this respect: the behaviour of the suffixal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Surface analogy vs deep structural properties



definite article (discussed in this paragraph) and V-Aux inversion (discussed below). The suffixal, enclitic, or postpositive definite article is one of the ‘prominent’ properties of the Balkan Sprachbund; it is discussed by most Balkan scholars, starting with Miklosich (), and is present in most of the languages of the Balkans (cf. Table  in Mišeska Tomić :). A cursory glance at neighbouring Bulgarian is thus instructive in this respect: the literature consulted verifies Koev’s (:) generalization that ‘in definitely-marked DPs in Bulgarian there will be only one occurrence of  and it will be found on the highest phi-featured element’, which holds with very few exceptions (e.g. freely ordered prenominal stacked adjectives separated by an intonational break may both bear the suffixal definite article). OR and MR contrast with Bulgarian in several important respects: in the availability of multiple definite structures—which is more extensively used in OR but available as a last-resort strategy with obligatorily prenominal adjectives in MR, too; in the repetition of the article on both conjuncts in the case of prenominal coordinated adjectives; and in the existence of low definite article structures, just to name the most relevant features present in Romanian and absent from Bulgarian. Thus the Romanian–Bulgarian similarities do not go beyond a surface analogy property, namely the suffixal–enclitic nature of the definite article. As shown in chapter  and in previous scholarship (Nicolae d; Ledgeway b), definiteness is a property of N in Romanian but a property of D in languages like Bulgarian (Koev ), and these properties correctly derive the definiteness realization patterns in these two languages.

. SURFACE ANALOGY VS DEEP STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES Other phenomena analysed in the book are also good illustrations of surface analogy, in the sense that the same surface string corresponds to different syntactic structures. For example, roughly understood as the separation of a proclitic pronominal clitic and the lexical verb, interpolation apparently represents a uniform phenomenon across Romance. However, as pointed out in previous scholarship (see Poole  in particular) and shown in chapter , interpolation phenomena are associated with different syntactic structures in the Romance languages, ranging from C-oriented clitics in old Spanish to low verb movement in southern Italo-Romance and OR, a fact shown from the very beginning by the variation in the range of admissible interpolated constituents across Romance, and confirmed by supplementary structural diagnostics. In the same line of thought, V-Aux inversion represents a very relevant phenomenon because it offers insights on the one hand into the issue of surface analogy vs deep structural properties and, on the other, into the debate concerning the weight of Romance inheritance vs Balkan Sprachbund influence on the syntax of (old)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Diachronic features of Romanian in a broader comparative setting

Romanian. OR V-Aux inversion has been included in the notorious class of Long Head Movement phenomena specific to the Balkan languages, first systematically analysed by María-Luisa Rivero (see Rivero  and previous work, individual and collective). At first sight, the V-Aux structures of OR are very similar to Bulgarian participle fronting, as they share the basic property of displacing a non-finite verb across the auxiliary verb, along with other subtler properties (note that a wider range of non-finite verbs may cross over the auxiliary in OR than in Bulgarian). However, the Romanian/Bulgarian analogy once again breaks down: while V-Aux inversion in OR is derived by movement of the non-finite lexical verb to the C-domain, the empirical data unambiguously show that participle fronting in Bulgarian is derived by movement of the participle to Spec,IP/TP (Broekhuis and Migdalski ; Harizanov ). Once again, this Balkan Sprachbund congruence is a surface word order property, not the reflex of a structural rule. On the other hand, the properties characteristic of old Romance V grammars have been shown in chapter  also to hold for OR V-Aux structures that, along with V-Cl structures, have been interpreted as a residual instantiation of an old Romance ‘relaxed’ V grammar: if V is understood as a structural constraint with a particular distribution rather than as a string-surface linearization condition (Ledgeway b:), then OR V-Aux inversion is a genuine instance of ‘relaxed’ V. A relevant difference between ‘relaxed’ V in OR and ‘relaxed’ V in other old Romance varieties is that, in OR, V-to-C movement exclusively targets lexical verbs, a property that has been shown to derive from the particular V-raising strategy adopted by Romanian (V-movement through specifiers). However, it is important to recall that scholars such as Rivero (:) have highlighted the fact that the very structures considered to instantiate ‘relaxed’ V in OR do so in other old Romance varieties too: ‘the environments for OSp [= old Spanish] Enclisis and OSp Analytic Futures/Conditionals are the same, that is, a subset of the root contexts where Germanic V is found, which seems to be the case in old Portuguese too’. To sum up, facts like those discussed in this section are not matters of divergent theoretical analyses and interpretations. Rather, the close examination of the data for each language indicates that identical word order patterns or linearizations are associated with distinct syntactic structures, even in languages from the same family (e.g. interpolation in Romance) or from the same area (e.g. definiteness and V-Aux in Romanian and Bulgarian).

. LESSONS FOR SYNTACTIC THEORY AND SYNTACTIC CHANGE A few ideas concerning current syntactic theory and the theory of syntactic change have emerged from the examination of word order change in the passage from OR to MR.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Lessons for syntactic theory and syntactic change



(i) Phases. The examination of discontiguous linearizations in the sentential core (interpolation, scrambling and related phenomena) indicates that the clause-internal phasal domain, commonly labelled vP, has a more complex syntactic architecture that includes at least VoiceP on top of vP (see also Baltin 2012; Roberts 2013; Cruschina and Ledgeway 2016), and, given its phasal nature, a periphery domain hosting low topics and foci. This conclusion is actually in agreement with Chomsky’s (2001) early definition of phases as complete propositional units: the clause-internal phasal domain, i.e. the lexical phase, is actually the domain where theta-marking and truth-conditionality are established, and Voice is crucially involved in both processes. Arguments for the potentially bi-phasal nature of DPs have also been presented in chapter  (see also Cornilescu and Nicolae a; Longobardi and Silvestri ; Simpson and Syed ; Syed and Simpson ). (ii) Verb raising strategy. The examination of verb movement has capitalized on two sides of this process: on the one hand, it is important to establish the ‘height’ of V-raising (the position targeted by the verb along the clausal spine) and, on the other, the ‘strategy’ of V-raising (how the verb moves along the clausal spine). In order to bypass the notorious problems encountered by the traditional head-raising analysis, on the one hand, and by the more recent phrasal (remnant) movement accounts, on the other, it has been suggested that a third option, whose origin can be traced back to Kayne (1991) and whose details were established by Vicente (2007), namely the V0-to-Spec analysis, correctly derives the properties and restrictions of verb movement (in particular, V-to-C movement) in Romanian. (iii) Discontinuous DPs. There are currently two main views on left-branch extraction and syntactically discontinuous DPs: Bošković’s NP/DP-parameter account and Ledgeway’s parameterization of antilocality. The OR data examined in chapter 4, which consist of discontinuous definite DPs, indicate that an analysis capitalizing on the parameterization of antilocality is preferable to one based on a putative NP/DP-parameter. The suffixal nature of the Romanian definite article and the fact that it is a property of N rather than of D explain why Spec,DP may, under certain conditions, function as an escape hatch, feeding further movement of DP-internal constituents to the clausal superstructure. (iv) Local vs global factors in grammaticalization. The examination of the steps of the grammaticalization of the freestanding article cel in Romanian—especially in the adjectival article construction—reveals that the coinage of a novel functional element concerns not only the grammaticalizing element itself, but also other morphological and syntactic changes of the system in its entirety: the adjectival article construction developed as the effect of the diachronic specialization of Romanian demonstratives, on the one hand, and of tightening of the conditions on accessing the DP-edge, on the other.

* *

*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Diachronic features of Romanian in a broader comparative setting

 Whether all the analyses proposed in the book are valid will be confirmed or disproved by future research (or by discovery of different or potentially older texts). After all, the diachronic linguist is confronted with a collection of old written texts, many of them characterized by a high number of stereotypical structures and features, and does not have access to the ‘genuine’ language of the period—the spoken language. The parallel examination of translations and of texts written directly in Romanian, in a broad comparative setting, allows us to filter out a series of learnèd and artificial phenomena and helps us to get one step closer to the description and analysis of the actual language of a historically remote period.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

APPENDIX

Corpus of old Romanian texts This corpus is based on a subset of the texts surveyed in Pană Dindelegan’s () Syntax of Old Romanian. Each abbreviation is followed by a year that marks the date of the text. An interval means that the dating is not precise. Each example cited is followed by a reference to the folio (r/v) of the manuscript or printed text from which it is excerpted. Where editors do not indicate the folios of the text, reference is made to the page of the edition. The localization of the texts is given at the end of the entry in round brackets.* A.

AA. AAM.

AB

ACP. ACT.

AD.– BB.

Bert. Catastih.

Alexandria. Ed. by F. Zgraon. Bucharest: Fundat¸ia Nat¸ională pentru Ştiint¸ă şi Artă,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ). (South Transylvania, Braşov or Hat¸eg) Archirie şi Anadan. Ed. by M. Georgescu. Bucharest: Minerva,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (North Transylvania) Antim Ivireanul, Aşezământul Mănăstirii Antim. From Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. by G. Ştrempel. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Bucharest) Istoria Ţării Rumâneşti de la octombrie  pînă la martie . From Cronicari munteni, vol. , ed. by M. Gregorian. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. Antim Ivireanul, Capete de poruncă. From Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. by G. Ştrempel. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgovişte) Antim Ivireanul, Chipurile Vechiului şi Noului Testament. From Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. by G. Ştrempel. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgovişte) Antim Ivireanul, Didahii. From Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. by G. Ştrempel. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Bucharest) Biblia = Biblia adecă Dumnezeiasca Scriptură a Vechiului şi Noului Testament, tipărită întâia oară la  în timpul lui Şerban Vodă Cantacuzino, Domnul Ţării Româneşti. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic, . (Wallachia, Bucharest) Bertoldo. Ed. by Magdalena Georgescu. Bucharest: Minerva,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (Moldova) Document [Romanian Academy’s Library, Historical Document, Nr. / ,  folios]. Ed. by E. Bedreag. From D. D. Iacob, Avere, prestigiu și cultură

* Once again, I wish to express my gratitude to Emanuela Timotin, who established the corpus and the citation conventions for the Syntax of Old Romanian.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts

CazV. CB.– CBuc.

CC1.

CC2.

CCat. CD.

CII.~

CIst.–

CL. CLM.–

CLRV () CM.

CP1.

CPr.

CPrav.–

materială în surse patrimoniale: Inventare de averi din secolele XVI–XIX. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii „Al. I. Cuza”, , –. Varlaam, Cazania. Ed. by J. Byck. Bucharest: Editura Academiei [s.a.], –. (Moldova) Codicele popii Bratul. Ed. by Al. Gafton: http://media.lit.uaic.ro/gafton. (South-East Transylvania or Braşov) Carte întru carea să scriu mâncările. From O lume într-o carte de bucate. Manuscris din epoca brâncovenească, ed. by I. Constantinescu, . Bucharest: Editura Fundației Culturale Române. (Wallachia) Coresi, Tâlcul Evangheliilor. From Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor şi molitvenic românesc, ed. by V. Drimba. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Transylvania, Wallachian subdialect) Coresi, Evanghelie cu învăt¸ătură. Ed. by S. Puşcariu and Al. Procopovici. Feom Diaconul Coresi, Carte cu învăt¸ătură (), vol. : Textul. Bucharest: Socec, . (Braşov) Coresi, Catehism. Ed. by Al. Roman-Moraru. From TR (): –. (Braşov) Dimitrie Cantemir, Divanul. From D. Cantemir, Opere complete, vol. : Divanul, ed. by V. Cândea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova, Iaşi) Dimitrie Cantemir, Istoria ieroglifică. From D. Cantemir, Opere complete, vol. : Istoria ieroglifică, ed. by S. Toma. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova) Constantin Cantacuzino, Istoria Ţării Româneşti. From Istoria Ţărâi Rumâneşti atribuită stolnicului Constantin Cantacuzino, ed. by O. Dragomir. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Bucharest) Coresi, Liturghier. Ed. by Al. Mareş. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Braşov, Wallachian subdialect) Miron Costin, Letopiset¸ul Ţărâi Moldovei. From M. Costin, Opere, ed. by P. P. Panaitescu. Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă, , –. (Moldova) Al. Mareş (ed.), Crestomat¸ia limbii române vechi, vol. : ( ). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, . Coresi, Molitvenic. From Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor şi molitvenic românesc, ed. by V. Drimba. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Transylvania) Coresi, Psaltire slavo-română. From Coresi, Psaltirea slavo-română () în comparat¸ie cu psaltirile coresiene din  şi din , ed. by S. Toma. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Braşov, Wallachian subdialect) Coresi, Apostol. Ed. by I. Bianu, Texte de limbă din secolul XVI, vol. : Lucrul apostolesc tipărit de diaconul Coresi la . Bucharest: Cultura Nat¸ională, . (Braşov) Coresi, Pravila. Ed. by Gh. Chivu. From TR (): –. (Braşov)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts

CPV.~ CS

CT.–

CTd.–

CV.– CVL.

CZB.–

DDL. DÎ

Doc.Athos1



Theodor Corbea, Psaltirea în versuri. Ed. by A.-M. Gherman. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Braşov) Codex Sturdzanus. Ed. by Gh. Chivu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. CSI.-post – Legenda duminicii. (Alba) CSII.- – Pravila sfint¸ilor părint¸i (În ştire să vă fie, oamenilor). (Alba) CSIII.- – Apocalipsul apostolului Pavel. (North Hunedoara) CSIV.- – Apocalipsul Maicii Domnului. (North Hunedoara) CSV.- – Cugetări în ora mort¸ii. (North Hunedoara) CSVI.- – Legenda lui Sisinie. (North Hunedoara) CSVII.- – I. Omilia de Paşti (Să neştire buru creştiru). (North Hunedoara) CSVIII.- – Rugăciune de scoatere a dracului. (Alba) CSIX.- – Moartea lui Avram. (Alba) CSX.- – II. Omilia de Paşti (Oarecire era un părinte). (North Transylvania) CSXI.- – Legenda Sfintei Vineri. (Alba) CSXII. – Întrebare creştinească. (Alba) CSXIII.- – Fragment liturgic. (Alba) CSXIV.- – Tâlcul evangheliei de la judecată (Zise Domnul). (Alba) CSXV. – Frat¸i dragi. (Alba) Coresi, Tetraevanghel. From Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi: Braşov –, comparat cu Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Măniceşti, , ed. by F. Dimitrescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, . (Braşov, Wallachian subdialect) Codicele Todorescu. From N. Drăganu, Două manuscripte vechi: Codicele Todorescu şi Codicele Mart¸ian. Bucharest: Librăriile Socec & Comp. şi C. Sfetea, , –. (North Transylvania, ILRL: ) Codicele Voronet¸ean. Ed. by M. Costinescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova) Miron Costin, Letopiset¸ul Ţărâi Moldovei. From M. Costin, Opere, ed. by P. P. Panaitescu. Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă, , –. (Moldova) Călătoria lui Zosim la blajini. Ed. by M. Stanciu-Istrate. Bucharest: Minerva,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (North Moldova) Dosoftei, Dumnezăiasca liturghie. Ed. by N. A. Ursu. Iaşi: Mitropolia Moldovei şi Sucevei, , –. (Moldova, Iaşi) Documente şi însemnări româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Ed. by Gh. Chivu, M. Georgescu, M. Ionit¸ă, Al. Mareş, and Al. Roman-Moraru. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, . De la Iaşi la Muntele Athos: Studii şi documente de istorie a Bisericii. Ed. by P. Zahariuc. Iaşi: Editura Universităt¸ii „Al. I. Cuza”, , –, –, –, –, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts

Doc.Athos2

DPar. DPV.

DRH.B

DVT.–

Ev. FD.–

Fiz. FT.– GB.XVI–XVII GCond.

ITM

ÎSL.–

LC.~

MC. MI.~

Documente româneşti din arhiva Mănăstirii Xenofon de la Muntele Athos, ed. by P. Zahariuc, F. Marinescu. Iaşi: Editura Universităt¸ii „Al. I. Cuza”, , –. Dosoftei, Parimiile preste an. Ed. by M. Ungureanu. Iaşi: Editura Universităt¸ii „Al. I. Cuza”, , –. (Moldova, Iaşi) Dosoftei, Psaltirea în versuri. From Dosoftei, Opere, vol. : Versuri, ed. by N. A. Ursu. Iaşi: Mitropolia Moldovei şi a Sucevei, , –. (Ukraine, Uniev) Documenta Romaniae Historica. B. Țara Românească. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, : vol. XXI (); : vol. XXIII (–); : vol. XXIV (–); : vol. XXX (); : vol. XXXI (); : vol. XXXIV (); vol. XXXV (); : vol. XXXVII (); : vol. XXXVIII (). (Wallachia) O traducere inedită a Vechiului Testament din secolul al XVI-lea. Ed. by C.-I. Dima. Bucharest: Editura Universităt¸ii din Bucureşti, , –. (Crişana, Bihor) Evanghelie învăt¸ătoare. Ed. by A.-M. Gherman. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Oltenia, Govora Monastery) Floarea darurilor. Ed. by A. Roman Moraru. Bucharest: Minerva,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (Moldova, Putna Monastery) Fiziologul. Ed. by V. Guruianu. Bucharest: Minerva,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (Braşov) Fragmentul Todorescu (Carte de cântece). Ed. by I. Ghet¸ie. From TR (): –. (Transylvania, Cluj) Glosele Bogdan. Ed. by M. Georgescu. From TR (): –. (North Moldova) Literatura românească de ceremonial. Condica lui Gheorgachi, . Ed. by D. Simonescu. Bucharest: Fundat¸ia Regele Carol I, , –. (Moldova, Iaşi) Însemnări pe de pe manuscrise şi cărt¸i vechi din Ţara Moldovei. Ed. by I. Caproşu, E. Chiaburu. Iaşi: Demiurg, , vol.  (–), –; vol.  (–), –. popa Urs (Cotiglet), Învăt¸ătură pentru sfânta lăturghie. Ed. by A. Timotin, „Învăt¸ătură pentru sfânta lăturghie. O cazanie necunoscută din secolul al XVII-lea”. Limba română LXVI, , , –. Lemnul crucii. Ed. by E. Timotin. Bucharest: Fundat¸ia Nat¸ională pentru Ştiint¸ă şi Artă,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (South-West Transylvania) M. Moxa, Cronograf. From Mihail Moxa, Cronica universală, ed. by G. Mihăilă. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Cozia Monastery) Manuscrisul de la Ieud. Ed. by M. Teodorescu and I. Ghet¸ie. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (North Transylvania, Maramureş)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts

Mol. NCL

NL.~–

NT. PH.– PI.~

PO. Prav. Prav.

Prav.

SA. Sind. SVI.~

ŞT. TR () ULM.~



Molităvnic. Ed. by A. Dumitran, A.-M. Gherman, A. Vanca. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, , –. (Alba Iulia) Nicolae Costin, Letopiset¸ul Ţării Moldovei. From Nicolae Costin, Opere, vol. , ed. by C. A. Stoide, I. Lăzărescu. Iaşi: Junimea, . (Moldova) NCLI.~, –. NCLII., –. Ion Neculce, Letopiset¸ul. From Ion Neculce, Letopiset¸ul Ţării Moldovei şi O samă de cuvinte, ed. by I. Iordan. Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă, ed. a II-a, , –. (Moldova and Wallachia) Noul Testament. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, . (Alba Iulia) Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, ed. by I. Ghet¸ie, M. Teodorescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, . (Moldova) Palia istorică. Ed. by A. Roman-Moraru, M. Moraru. Bucharest: Fundat¸ia Nat¸ională pentru Ştiint¸ă şi Artă,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (South-West Transylvania) Palia de la Orăştie. Ed. by V. Pamfil. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, . (Banat-Hunedoara) Pravila ritorului Lucaci. Ed. by I. Rizescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova, Putna Monastery) Carte românească de învăt¸ătură. From Carte românească de învăt¸ătură. , ed. by Colectivul pentru vechiul drept românesc condus de acad. A. Rădulescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , – (Adunarea izvoarelor vechiului drept românesc scris, ). (Moldova, Iaşi) Pravilniceasca condică. Ed. by Colectivul pentru vechiul drept românesc condus de acad. A. Rădulescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei,  (Adunarea izvoarelor vechiului drept românesc scris, ), –. (Wallachia, Bucharest) Ioan Zoba din Vint¸, Sicriul de aur. Ed. by A. Got¸ia. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Sebeş) Sindipa. Ed. by M. Georgescu. Bucharest: Minerva,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (Braşov) Varlaam şi Ioasaf. From M. Stanciu Istrate, Reflexe ale medievalităt¸ii europene în cultura română veche: Varlaam şi Ioasaf în cea mai veche versiune a traducerii lui Udrişte Năsturel. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Nat¸ional al Literaturii Române, , –. (Wallachia) Şeapte taine a besearecii, Iaşi, . Ed. by I. Mazilu. Iaşi: Editura Universităt¸ii „Al. I. Cuza”, , –. (Moldova, Iaşi) I. Ghet¸ie (coord.), Texte românesti din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Grigore Ureche, Letopiset¸ul Ţării Moldovei. Ed. by P. P. Panaitescu. Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă, , –. (Wallachia, original from Moldova)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



Appendix: Corpus of old Romanian texts

VN.–

VRC.

Viat¸a Sfântului Vasile cel Nou şi Vămile văzduhului. Ed. by M. Stanciu-Istrate. Bucharest: Fundat¸ia Nat¸ională pentru Ştiint¸ă şi Artă,  (Cele mai vechi cărt¸i populare în literatura română, ), –. (South-East Transylvania) Varlaam, Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc. From Varlaam, Opere: Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc, ed. by M. Teodorescu. Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgovişte, Dealu Monastery)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References Abeillé, Anne and Danièle Godard (). ‘Varieties of  in Romance languages’. In Dan Flickinger and Andreas Kathol (eds), Berkeley Formal Grammar Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, –. Abels, Klaus (). Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Abney, Steven Paul (). The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT. Aboh, Enoch O. (). ‘Topic and focus within D’. Linguistics in the Netherlands , : –. Adams, J.N. (). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, Marianne (). Old French, Null Subjects, and Verb Second Phenomena. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Adger, David and Peter Svenonius (). ‘Features in minimalist syntax’. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Akiyama, Masahiro (). ‘Multiple nominative constructions in Japanese and economy’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Alboiu, Gabriela (). ‘(De-)Focusing and object raising in Romanian’. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , : –. Alboiu, Gabriela (). The Features of Movement in Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Alboiu, Gabriela and Virginia Hill (). ‘Early Modern Romanian and Wackernagel’s Law’. SKY Journal of Linguistics : –. Alboiu, Gabriela and Virginia Hill (). ‘Grammaticalization of auxiliaries and parametric changes’. The Linguistic Review , : –. Alboiu, Gabriela, Virginia Hill, and Ioanna Sitaridou (). ‘Discourse-driven V-to-C in Early Modern Romanian’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. DOI: ./s--. Alboiu, Gabriela and Virginia Motapanyane (). ‘The generative approach to Romanian grammar: An overview’. In Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier, –. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (). ‘The Subject-in-Situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Andriani, Luigi (). ‘Adjectival positions in Barese’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , –: –. Avram, Larisa (). Auxiliaries and the Structure of Language. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Avram, Larisa and Virgnia Hill (). ‘An irrealis  auxiliary in Romanian’. In Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Avram, Mioara ( []). ‘Particularităţi sintactice neromâneşti în diferite momente ale evoluţiei limbii române literare’. In Mioara Avram, Studii de sintaxă a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. [First published in , Studii şi cercetări lingvistice , : –.] Baker, Mark C. (). ‘The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Baltin, Mark (). ‘Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy?’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Barbosa, Pilar (). Null Subjects. PhD dissertation, MIT. Barbu, Ana-Maria (). ‘The negation nu: lexical or affixal item?’. In Emil Ionescu (ed.), Understanding Romanian Negation: Syntactic and Semantic Approaches in a Declarative Perspective. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Barbu, Ana-Maria (). ‘Situaţii de acord ale adjectivelor pronominale’. In Rodica Zafiu, Gabriela Stoica, and Mihaela N. Constantinescu (eds), Limba română: Teme actuale. Actele celui de-al -lea Colocviu al Catedrei de limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –. Belletti, Adriana (). Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Belletti, Adriana (). ‘Aspects of the low IP area’. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. . Oxford: Oxford University of Press, –. Benincà, Paola (). ‘Un’ipotesi sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali’’. Quaderni patavini di linguistica : –. Benincà, Paola (). ‘Complement clitics in Medieval Romance: the Tobler-Mussafia law’. In Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Benincà, Paola (). ‘A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance’. In Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herberger, and Paul H. Portner (eds), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, –. Benincà, Paola and Christina Tortora (). ‘Towards a finer-grained theory of Italian participial clausal architecture’. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Benincà, Paola and Christina Tortora (). ‘On clausal architecture: Evidence from complement clitic placement in Romance’. In Vicenç Torrens, Linda Escobar, Anna Gavarró, and Juncal Gutiérrez (eds), Movement and Clitics: Adult and Child Grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Bernstein, Judy (). ‘DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement’. Probus , : –. Bernstein, Judy (). Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance. PhD dissertation, CUNY.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Bernstein, Judy (). ‘Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages’. Lingua , –: –. Bernstein, Judy (). ‘Focusing the “right” way in Romance determiner phrases’. Probus , : –. Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts (). ‘A syntactic universal and its consequences’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Bidu, Angela (). ‘Schiță de sistem al pronumelor demonstrative cu exemplificare pe un text din secolul al XVII-lea (Cazania lui Varlaam)’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Bortolotto, Laura (). The Syntax of Relational Adjectives in Romance: A Cartographic Approach. PhD dissertation, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice. Bošković, Željko (). ‘Left branch extraction, structure of NP, and scrambling’. In Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito (eds), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Bošković, Željko (). ‘More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages’. Studia linguistica , : –. Bošković, Željko and Jon Gajewski (). ‘Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter’. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, and Brian Smith (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual North East Linguistic Society. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA, –. Brandner, Ellen (). ‘Head-movement in minimalism and V as -marking’. In Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler (eds), Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Brăescu, Raluca (). ‘Adjectives and adjectival phrases’. In GR: –. Brăescu, Raluca (). Gradarea în limba română: perspectivă istorică şi tipologică. Postdoctoral dissertation, Romanian Academy. Brăescu, Raluca (). ‘Adjectives and adjectival phrases’. In SOR: –. Brăescu, Raluca and Adina Dragomirescu (). ‘Sintaxa adjectivelor relaţionale în limba română veche’. Limba română , : –. Brăescu, Raluca, Adina Dragomirescu, and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘(Non‑)configurationality and the internal syntax of adjectives in Romanian’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Brâncuș, Grigore (). Introducere în istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Fundației România de Mâine. Brito, Ana Maria and Eduardo Buzzaglo Paiva Raposo (). ‘Complementos, modificadores e adjuntos no sintagma nominal’. In Eduardo Buzzaglo Paiva Raposo et al. (eds), Gramática do português, vol. . Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, –. Broekhuis, Hans and Krzysztof Migdalski (). ‘Participle fronting in Bulgarian as XP-movement’. Linguistics in the Netherlands , : –. Brugè, Laura (). ‘The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection’. In Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press, –. Buridant, Claude (). Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: SEDES. Campos, Héctor (). ‘Noun modification, pseudo-articles, and last resort operations in Arvantovlaxika and in Romanian’. Lingua , : –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Campos, Héctor (). ‘Some notes on adjectival articles in Albanian’. Lingua , : –. Carabulea, Elena (). ‘Predicatul’. In Mioara Avram (ed.), Sintaxa limbii române în secolele al XVI-lea–al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Caragiu-Marioțeanu, Matilda (). ‘Observații în legătură cu sistemul pronumelui demonstrativ în aromână’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Cardinaletti, Anna (). ‘Subjects and clause structure’. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman, –. Chénery, Winthrop Holt (). ‘Object-pronouns in dependent clauses: A case study in Old Spanish word order’. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America : –. Chomsky, Noam (). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (). ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework’. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Chomsky, Noam (). ‘Derivation by phase’. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Chomsky, Noam (). ‘On phases’. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (). ‘Filters and control’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Cinque, Guglielmo (a). ‘Agreement and head-to-head movement in the Romance Noun Phrase’. Paper presented at the th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Ottawa. Cinque, Guglielmo (b). Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (). ‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Cinque, Guglielmo (). ‘On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’. In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, –. Cinque, Guglielmo (). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (). ‘Deriving Greenberg’s Universal  and its exceptions’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Cinque, Guglielmo (). The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (). ‘Word-order typology: A change of perspective’. In Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Clark, Robin and Ian Roberts (). ‘A computational approach to language learnability and language change’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Cognola, Federica (). ‘The mixed OV/VO syntax of Mòcheno main clauses: On the interaction between high and low left periphery’. In Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Collins, Chris (). ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English’. Syntax , : –. Corbeanu, Ramona Cătălina (). Topica subiectului în limba română veche. PhD dissertation, ‘Iorgu Iordan–Al. Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics, Romanian Academy. Corbett, Greville G. (). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (). ‘The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems’. Morphology , : –. Corbett, Greville G. (). Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornilescu, Alexandra (). ‘The double subject construction in Romanian’. In Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra (). ‘În legătură cu conceptul de pronume semiindependent: Observaţii asupra articolului adjectival cel’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), Tradiţie şi inovaţie în studiul limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra (). ‘Romanian demonstratives and minimality’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Cornilescu, Alexandra (). ‘Modes of semantic combinations: NP/DP adjectives and the structure of the Romanian DP’. In Jenny Doetjes and Paz González (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra (). ‘Despre trăsăturile periferice și cum le-am putea folosi’. In Camelia Stan, Rodica Zafiu, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Studii lingvistice: Omagiu profesoarei Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Ruxandra Cosma (). ‘On the functional structure of the Romanian de-supine’. In Ruxandra Cosma, Stefan Engelberg, Susan Schlotthauer, Speranța L. Stănescu, and Gisela Zifonun (eds), Komplexe Argumentstrukturen: Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum Deutschen, Rumänischen und Englischen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Ion Giurgea (). ‘The adjective’. In RGR: –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘Evoluţia articolului hotărât şi genitivul în româna veche’. In Rodica Zafiu, Gabriela Stoica, and Mihaela N. Constantinescu (eds), Limba română: Teme actuale. Actele celui de-al -lea Colocviu al Catedrei de limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (a). ‘Nominal peripheries and phase structure in the Romanian DP’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (b). ‘On the history of Romanian genitives: The prenominal genitive’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XIII, : –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (c). ‘On the syntax of Romanian definite phrases: Changes in the patterns of definiteness checking’. In Petra Sleeman and Harry Perridon (eds), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘Nominal ellipsis as definiteness and anaphoricity: The case of Romanian’. Lingua , : –. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘Remarks on verb movement in modern Romanian’. Paper presented at ‘Al XIII-lea Colocviu Internaţional al Departamentului de Lingvistică’, University of Bucharest, – December.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘Diachronic variation in the syntax of Romanian demonstratives’. Paper presented at the Syntactic Variation Workshop, University of Bucharest, – November. Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘Romanian adjectives at the syntax– semantics interface’. Acta linguistica hungarica , : –. Costea, Ștefania (a). Particularități morfosintactice ale limbii române vorbite în Republica Moldova. MA dissertation, University of Bucharest. Costea, Ștefania (b). ‘Preverbal subjects in Moldovan Daco-Romanian direct and indirect wh‑interrogatives’. Paper presented at the th Cambridge Romance Linguistics Seminar, – January. Cotfas, Maria Aurelia (). On the Syntax of the Romanian Subjunctive: Control and Obviation. PhD dissertation, University of Bucharest. Crisma, Paola (). Functional Categories inside the NP: A Study on the Distribution of Nominal Modifiers. Graduation thesis, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice. Crisma, Paola and Chiara Gianollo (). ‘Where did Romance N-raising come from? A parallel study of parameter resetting in Latin and English’. In Jenny Doetjes and Paz González (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Croitor, Blanca (). ‘Aspecte privind acordul în determinare în limba română veche’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), Limba română. Dinamica limbii, dinamica interpretării. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Croitor, Blanca (). ‘Asymmetric coordination in Old Romanian’. Linguistica Atlantica , , –. Cruschina, Silvio (). ‘Focalization and word order in Old Italo-Romance’. Catalan Journal of Linguistics , –. Cruschina, Silvio and Adam Ledgeway (). ‘The structure of the clause’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Danon, Gabi (). ‘The definiteness feature at the syntax–semantics interface’. In Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett (eds), Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko (). ‘Decomposing pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. DELR. Sala, Marius and Andrei Avram (eds) (). Dicționarul etimologic al limbii române, vol. : A–B. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Demonte, Violeta (). ‘El adjetivo: clases y usos: la posición del adjetivo en el sintagma nominal’. In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. : Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras. Madrid: Espasa, –. den Besten, Hans (). ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’. In Werner Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. den Besten, Hans and Corretje Moed-van Walraven (). ‘The syntax of verbs in Yiddish’. In Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn (eds), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris: Dordrecht, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



den Dikken, Marcel (). Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Densusianu, Ovid (). Istoria limbii române ( vols), ed. by J. Byck. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică. Devine, A.M. and Laurence D. Stephens (). Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. New York: Oxford University Press. Devine, A.M. and Laurence D. Stephens (). Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diaconescu, Paula (). ‘Un mod de descriere a flexiunii nominale, cu aplicație la limba română contemporană’. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice , : –. Diesing, Molly (). ‘Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Diessel, Holger (). Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Diez, Friedrich (). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Vierte Auflage. Bonn: Eduard Weber. Dimitrescu, Florica (). ‘Deixis și persoană’. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice , : –. Dimitrescu, Florica (). Introducere în morfosintaxa istorică a limbii române. Bucharest: Centrul de multiplicare al Universității din București. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (). The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (). ‘Head-to-head merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality’. In María-Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Ion Giurgea (). ‘The suffixation of definite articles in Balkan languages’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Donazzan, Marta and Alexandru Mardale (). ‘Additive and aspectual adverbs: towards an analysis of Romanian mai’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Dragomirescu, Adina (). ‘Concordanţa negaţiei în limba română veche’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), Limba română: Dinamica limbii, dinamica interpretării. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Dragomirescu, Adina (). ‘Verbul’ [th c.]. In Gh. Chivu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu, and Irina Nicula (eds), Studii de istorie a limbii române: Morfosintaxa românei literare în secolele al XIX-lea–al XX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Dragomirescu, Adina (). ‘O schimbare parametrică de la româna veche la româna modernă în sintaxa formelor verbale compuse cu auxiliar’. Limba română , : –. Dragomirescu, Adina (a). ‘L’accord du participe passé en ancien roumain’. Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Dragomirescu, Adina (b). ‘The syntax of compound tenses and scrambling in old Romanian’. Paper presented at the SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge,  February. Dragomirescu, Adina (). ‘Există trăsături slavone în sintaxa limbii române? Două studii de caz / Are there Slavonic Features in the Syntax of Romanian? Two case studies’. Diacronia , . http://dx.doi.org/./iAro/http://dx.doi.org/./iAen. Dragomirescu, Adina (). ‘The subjective predicative complement’. In SOR: –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Dragomirescu, Adina (). ‘Poziția subiectului în interogative directe parțiale și relative în limba română veche’. Paper presented at the th International Symposium of Linguistics, ‘Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest, – May. Dragomirescu, Adina (in press). ‘Deixis and the determiner system’. In Martin Maiden (ed.), The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dragomirescu, Adina and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘L’ellipse nominale avec article défini de l’ancien roumain au roumain moderne: Le cas du participe passé’. In Adam Ledgeway, Michela Cennamo, and Guido Mensching (eds), Actes du XXVIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, – juillet ): Section : Syntaxe. Nancy: ATILF/SLR, –. Dragomirescu, Adina and Alexandru Nicolae (). ‘Syntactic archaisms preserved in a contemporary romance variety: Interpolation and scrambling in old Romanian and IstroRomanian’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives on Romance Syntax. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Dragoş, Elena (). Elemente de sintaxă istorică românească. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică. Dubert, Francisco and Charlotte Galves (). ‘Galician and Portuguese’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Emonds, Joseph (). Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT. Emonds, Joseph (). ‘The verbal complex V’-V in French’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Faarlund, Jan Terje (). ‘On the history of definiteness marking in Scandinavian’. Journal of Linguistics , : –. Fauconnier, Gilles (). ‘Pragmatic scales and logical structure’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Ferrazzano, Lisa Reisig (). Demonstratives in Motion: The Grammaticalization of Demonstratives as a Window into Synchronic Phenomena. PhD dissertation, City University of New York. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, . Fischer, I. (). Latina dunăreană. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Foerster, Paul (). Spanische Sprachlehre. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Fontana, Josep M. (). Phrase Structure and the Syntax of Clitics in the History of Spanish. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Fontana, Josep M. (). ‘On the integration of second position phenomena’. In Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Frampton, John and Sam Gutmann (). ‘How sentences grow in the mind: Agreement and selection in an efficient minimalist syntax’. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Franco, Irene (). Verbs, Subjects and Stylistic Fronting: A Comparative Analysis of the Interaction of CP Properties with Verb Movement and Subject Positions in Icelandic and Old Italian. PhD dissertation, Università degli Studi di Siena.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Frascarelli, Mara and Roland Hinterhölzl (). ‘Types of topics in German and Italian’. In Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Frâncu, Constantin (). ‘Cu privire la uniunea lingvistică balcanică. Înlocuirea infinitivului prin construcţii personale în limba română veche’. Anuarul de lingvistică şi istorie literară : –. Frâncu, Constantin (). Conjunctivul românesc şi raporturile lui cu alte moduri. Iaşi: Casa Editorială Demiurg. Frâncu, Constantin (). Gramatica limbii române vechi. Iași: Casa Editorială Demiurg. Gafton, Alexandru (). ‘Studiu filologic’. In Codicele popii Bratul, ed. by Alexandru Gafton. Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. http://media.lit.uaic.ro/gafton. Gafton, Alexandru (). De la traducere la norma literară: Contribuția traducerii textului biblic la constituirea vechii norme literare. Iași: Editura Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza. GALR. Guţu Romalo, Valeria (ed.) (). Gramatica limbii române, vol. : Cuvântul; vol. : Enunţul. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. GBLR. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (). Gramatica de bază a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic Gold. Gessner, Emil (). ‘Das spanische Personalpronomen’. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie : –. Gheorghe, Mihaela (). ‘The structure of complex clauses: Subordination. Argument clauses’. In GR: –. Gheorghe, Mihaela (). ‘Relative clauses’. In SOR: –. Gheție, Ion (). ‘Probleme teoretice și metodologice ale cercetării limbii române literare vechi’. In ILRL: –. Gheție, Ion and Florentina Zgraon (). ‘Despre așa-numitele formații premorfologice din limba română veche’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Gianollo, Chiara (). ‘The internal syntax of the nominal phrase in Latin: A diachronic study’. In Gérald Purnelle and Joseph Denooz (eds), Ordre et cohérence en Latin/Word Order and Text Cohesion in Latin. Liège: Librairie Droz, –. Giorgi, Alessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi (). The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, Parameters and Empty Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi (). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Giurgea, Ion (). ‘The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement’. In Julia Herschensohn (ed.), Romance linguistics : Selected Papers from the th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Linguistics (LSRL), Seattle, Washington, March . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Giurgea, Ion (a). ‘Nominal inflection’. In RGR: –. Giurgea, Ion (b). Originea articolului posesiv-genitival al şi evoluția sistemului demonstrativelor în română. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române. Giurgea, Ion (c). ‘The Syntax of determiners and other functional categories’. In RGR: –. Giusti, Giuliana (). La sintassi dei sintagmi nominali quantificati. PhD dissertation, University of Venice and University of Padua.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Giusti, Giuliana (). ‘The rise of a functional category: From Latin  to the Romance article and personal pronoun’. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Giusti, Giuliana (). ‘The birth of a functional category: From Latin  to the Romance article and personal pronoun’. In Gugliemo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier, –. Giusti, Giuliana (). ‘At the left periphery of the Romanian Noun Phrase’. In Martine Coene and Liliane Tasmowski (eds), On Space and Time in Language. Clusium: Cluj Napoca, –. Giusti, Giuliana (). ‘Il sintagma aggettivale’. In Lorenzo Renzi and Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: Il Mulino, –. GLR. Graur, Al., Mioara Avram, and Laura Vasiliu (eds) ( []). Gramatica limbii române ( vols). Bucharest: Editura Academiei. GR. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (). The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Graur, Al. (). ‘De nouveau sur l’article postposé en roumain’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Grohmann, Kleanthes (). Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Guruianu, Viorel (). Sintaxa textelor româneşti originale din secolul al XVI-lea: Sintaxa propoziţiei. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo (). ‘Topicalization and preverbal subjects in Spanish whinterrogatives’. In Joyce Bruhn de Garavito and Elena Valenzuela (eds), Selected Proceedings of the th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, –. Guţu Romalo, Valeria ( []). ‘Semiauxiliarele de mod’. In Valeria Guțu Romalo, Aspecte ale evoluţiei limbii române. Bucharest: Humanitas, –. [First published in , Studii de gramatică, vol. . Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –.] Halpern, Aaron (). ‘The Balkan definite article and pseudo-second position’. In Laura Buszard-Welcher, Jonathan Evans, David Peterson, Lionel Wee, and William Weigel (eds), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, –. Harizanov, Boris (). ‘Head movement to specifier positions in Bulgarian participle fronting’. Paper presented at the th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA ), Washington, DC, January. Harley, Heidi (). ‘Affixation and the Mirror Principle’. In Raffaella Folli and Christiane Ulbrich (eds), Interfaces in Linguistics: New Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Hasdeu, Bodgan Petriceicu (). ‘O pagină din sintaxa româno-albaneză: Reduplicarea şi triplicarea articolului hotărât’. In Bodgan Petriceicu Hasdeu, Cuvente din bătrâni, vol. . Bucharest: Noua Typografie Naţională C.N. Rădulescu, –. Haspelmath, Martin (). ‘From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticisation’. Folia linguistica historica , –: –. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Heringa, Hermanus (). Appositional Constructions. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations. Hill, Virginia (). ‘The emergence of the Romanian subjunctive’. The Linguistic Review , : –. Hill, Virginia and Gabriela Alboiu (). Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) (). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iliescu, Maria (). ‘Sur l’origine du démonstratif daco-roumain ăl’. Revue roumaine de linquistique , : –. Iliescu, Maria (). ‘Phénomènes de convergence et de divergence dans la Romania: morphosyntaxe et syntax’. In Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleβgen, Christian Schmitt, and Wolfgang Schweickard (eds), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen/Manuel international d’histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, –. Iliescu, Maria (). ‘L’article adjectival roumain: un exemple de récurrence typologique ciclique’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Iliescu, Maria (). ‘Aspects de l’évolution de l’article défini en français et en roumain’. Travaux de linguistique , : –. Iliescu, Maria and Maria Manoliu (). ‘Split grammaticalization: Lat. , Rom. și’. Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart , : –. ILRL. Gheţie, Ion (ed.) (). Istoria limbii române literare: Epoca veche (–). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Ionașcu, Al. (). ‘O paralelă gramaticală slavo-română (sistemul cuvintelor deictice în graiurile oltenești)’. Romanoslavica IV: –. Iordan, Iorgu (). Limba română contemporană. Bucharest: Editura Ministerului Învăţământului. Iordan, Iorgu and Maria Manoliu (). Introducere în lingvistica romanică. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică. Iovino, Rossella (). ‘Osservazioni diacroniche sulle espressioni nominali discontinue dal latino alle lingue romanze’. In Michèle Fruyt, Gerd V. M. Haverling, and Rosanna Sornicola (eds), Actes du XXVIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, – juillet ): Section : Linguistique latine/linguistique romane. Nancy: ATILF/SLR, –. Isac, Daniela and Edith Jakab (). ‘Mood and Force features in the languages of the Balkans’. In Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Jordan, Maria (). Loss of Infinitival Complementation in Romanian Diachronic Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Florida. Kaiser, Georg A. (). Verbstellung Und Verbstellungswandel in Den Romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Kayne, Richard S. (). ‘Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Kayne, Richard S. (). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. (). ‘Silent years, silent hours’. In Richard S. Kayne, Movement and Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Kayne, Richard S. (). ‘Comparative syntax’. Lingua : –. Kayne, Richard S. and Jean-Yves Pollock (). ‘New thoughts on stylistic inversion’. In Aafke C. J. Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), Subject Inversion and the Theory of Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, –. Kayne, Richard S. and Jean-Yves Pollock (). ‘Toward an analysis of French hyper-complex inversion’. In Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto (eds), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. : Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Kayne, Richard S. and Jean-Yves Pollock (). ‘Locality and agreement in French hypercomplex inversion’. In Enoch O. Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti, and Ian Roberts (eds.), Locality. New York: Oxford University Press, –. Kibort, Anna (). ‘Towards a typology of grammatical features’. In Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett (eds), Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Klein, Wolfgang (). Time in Language. London: Routledge. Klein, Wolfgang (). ‘Assertion and Finiteness’. In Norbert Dittmar and Zvi Penner (eds), Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn. Bern: Peter Lang, –. Knittel, Marie-Laurence (). ‘Taxonomic adjectives in French: A syntactic account’. https:// hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-. Koev, Todor (). ‘Definiteness as agreement: Evidence from Bulgarian’. In Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, and Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds), Proceedings of the th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, –. Koopman, Hilda (). ‘The Spec Head configuration’. Syntax at Sunset: UCLA Working Papers in Syntax and Semantics : –. Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabolcsi (). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Laenzlinger, Christopher (). ‘French adjective ordering: perspectives on DP-internal movement types’. Lingua , : –. Laenzlinger, Christopher and Gabriela Soare (). ‘On merging positions for arguments and adverbs in the Romance Mittelfield’. In Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert, and Giuseppina Turano (eds), Contributions to the Thirtienth ‘Incontro di Grammatica Generativa’. Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari, –. Lambrecht, Knud (). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (). ‘Syntactic reanalysis’. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, –. Larson, Richard K. and Franc Marušič (). ‘On indefinite pronoun structures with APs: Reply to Kishimoto’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Lausberg, Heinrich (). Lingüística románica: Morfología. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Ledgeway, Adam (a). Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Ledgeway, Adam (b). ‘Lo sviluppo dei dimostrativi nei dialetti centromeridionali’. Lingua e Stile : –. Ledgeway, Adam (a). ‘Old Neapolitan word order: Some initial observations’. In Anna Laura Lepschy and Arturo Tosi (eds), Languages of Italy: Histories and Dictionaries. Ravenna: Longo Editore, –. Ledgeway, Adam (b). ‘La posizione dell’aggettivo nella storia del napoletano’. In Delia Bentley and Adam Ledgeway (eds), Sui dialetti italoromanzi: Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent (Italianist , Special Supplement ). Norfolk: Biddles, –. Ledgeway, Adam (). ‘Satisfying V in early Romance: Merge vs. Move’. Journal of Linguistics , : –. Ledgeway, Adam (). ‘Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del cosentino’. In Diego Pescarini (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria. Padua: Unipress, –. Ledgeway, Adam (). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam (). ‘Parametrul poziţiei centrului şi efectele sale pragmatice în trecerea de la latină la limbile romanice’. In Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –. Ledgeway, Adam (a). ‘Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae, and Louise Esher (eds), Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Ledgeway, Adam (b). ‘Varieties in Italy’. In Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano (eds), Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, –. Ledgeway, Adam (). ‘Functional categories’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Ledgeway, Adam (a). ‘Late Latin verb second: The sentential word order of the Itinerarium Egeriae’. In Jaume Mateu and Renato Oniga (eds), Generative Approaches to Latin Syntax. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics : –. DOI: https://doi.org/./rev/ catjl.. Ledgeway, Adam (b). ‘The Romanian definite article in a comparative Romance perspective’. In Adina Dragomirescu, Alexandru Nicolae, Camelia Stan, and Rodica Zafiu (eds), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi: Omagiu Gabrielei Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –. Ledgeway, Adam (a). ‘On the decline of edge-fronting from Latin to Romance’. In Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso (eds), Word Order Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Ledgeway, Adam (b). ‘Parallels in clausal and nominal structures: Romanian clitic placement’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives on Romance Syntax. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Ledgeway, Adam (in press a). ‘From Latin to Romance syntax: the great leap’. In Paola Crisma and Giuseppe Longobardi (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam (in press b). ‘Passive periphrases in the Romance language’. In Francesco Gardani and Michele Loporcaro (eds), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Romance Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam (in press c). ‘The verb phrase’. In Giuseppe Longobardi (ed.), The Syntax of Italian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ledgeway, Adam and Alessandra Lombardi (). ‘Verb movement, adverbs, and clitic positions in Romance’. Probus , : –. Ledgeway, Adam and Alessandra Lombardi (). ‘The development of the Southern subjunctive: Morphological loss and syntactic gain’. In Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent (eds), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Ledgeway, Adam and John Charles Smith (). ‘Deixis’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Lema, José and María-Luisa Rivero (). ‘Long head movement: HMC vs. ECP’. In Juli A. Carter (ed.), Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst: MA: GLSA, –. Lemieux, Monique and Fernande Dupuis (). ‘The locus of verb movement in nonasymmetric verb second languages: The case of Middle French’. In Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Leu, Thomas (). ‘These  demonstratives’. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Leu, Thomas (). The Internal Syntax of Determiners. PhD dissertation, New York University. Lombard, Alf (). La langue roumaine. Une présentation. Paris: Klincksieck. Longobardi, Giuseppe (). ‘Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Longobardi, Giuseppe (). ‘The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters and problems’. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Longobardi, Giuseppe and Giuseppina Silvestri (). ‘The structure of NPs: Some insights on case, empty categories, and poverty of stimulus’. In Silvia Luraghi and Claudia Parodi (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax. London: Bloomsbury Academic, –. Madariaga, Nerea (). ‘Reanalysis’. In Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Maiden, Martin (). A Linguistic History of Italian. London: Longman. Maiden, Martin (). ‘Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian’. In SOR: –. Manea, Dana (). ‘Negators and negative constructions’. In SOR: –. Manoliu Manea, Maria (). Sistematica substitutelor în româna standard. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Manoliu Manea, Maria (). ‘Rumänisch Morphosyntax / Morphosyntaxe du roumain’. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik [LRL], vol. . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, –. Manoliu, M. Maria (). ‘La dialectique du changement linguistique : les sept vies du démonstratif roumain’. In Ana-Cristina Halichias and Tudor Dinu (eds), Antic și modern: In honorem Luciae Wald. Bucharest: Humanitas, –. Manoliu, M. Maria (). ‘Pragmatic and discourse changes’. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. : Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Marin, Maria (). ‘O particularitate a graiurilor muntenești: hipercaracterizarea prin articulare’. In Caietele Sextil Puşcariu, vol. . Cluj-Napoca: Scriptor/Argonout, –. Martins, Ana Maria (). ‘The loss of IP-scrambling in Portuguese: clause structure, wordorder variation and change’. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Martins, Ana Maria (). ‘Scrambling and information focus in Old and Contemporary Portuguese’. Catalan Journal of Linguistics : –. Mathieu, Eric (). ‘On the Germanic properties of Old French’. In Paola Crisma and Giuseppe Longobardi (eds), Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, –. Meklenborg Salvesen, Christine (). ‘Stylistic fronting and remnant movement in Old French’. In Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs, and Tobias Scheer (eds). Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory : Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Mensching, Guido (). ‘Parameters in Old Romance word order: A comparative minimalist analysis’. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanita Avelar (eds), Parameter Theory and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (). ‘Zur Stellung der tonlosen Objektspronomina’. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie : –. Migdalski, Krzysztof (). ‘On the loss of tense and verb-adjacent clitics in Slavic’. In George Walkden and Theresa Biberauer (eds), Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Mihăescu, H. (). Limba latină în provinciile dunărene ale Imperiului Roman. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Miklosic, Franz von (). ‘Die slavischen Elemente im Rumänischen’. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse : –. Mišeska Tomić, Olga (). Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer. Mithun, Marianne (). ‘The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives’. Berkeley Linguistics Society : –. Mithun, Marianne (). ‘What cycles when and why?’. In Elly van Gelderen. (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Mîrzea Vasile, Carmen (). ‘The position of the light adverbials si, cam, mai, prea, and tot in the verbal cluster: synchronic variation and diachronic observations’. In Gabriela Pană

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae, and Louise Esher (eds), Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Moldovanu, Dragoș (). ‘Influenţe ale manierismului greco-latin în sintaxa lui Dimitrie Cantemir: hiperbatul’. In Ion Gheţie (ed.), Studii de limbă literară şi filologie. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Moldovanu, Dragoș (–). ‘Formaţiile premorfologice din limba română veche’. Anuar de Lingvistică și Istorie Literară : –. Moravcsik, Edith (). ‘Parts and wholes in the Hungarian noun phrase: A typological study’. In Bohumil Palek (ed.), Proceedings of LP ’. Prague: Charles University Press, –. Mussafia, Adolfo (). ‘Una particolarità sintattica della lingua italiana dei primeri secoli’. In Graziadio I. Ascoli et al. (eds), Miscellanea di filologia e linguistica in memoria di Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angelo Canello. Florence: Le Monni, –. Nedelcu, Isabela (). Particularități sintactice ale limbii române în context romanic: Infinitivul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Nedelcu, Isabela (). ‘The infinitive and the infinitival construction’. In SOR: –. Nicolae, Alexandru (a). ‘Articolul’ [th c.]. In Gh. Chivu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu, and Irina Nicula (eds), Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa limbii literare în secolele al XIX-lea şi al XX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Nicolae, Alexandru (b). ‘Gramaticalizarea articolului hotărât românesc: Noi rezultate’. Limbă şi literatură , –: –. Nicolae, Alexandru (a). ‘Alternative and identity determiners’. In GR: –. Nicolae, Alexandru (b). ‘Demonstratives’. In GR: –. Nicolae, Alexandru (c). ‘The determiner ’. In GR: –. Nicolae, Alexandru (d). Types of Ellipsis in Romanian. PhD Thesis. University of Bucharest and University of Cambridge. Nicolae, Alexandru (a). ‘Modal verb configurations in Romanian’. Paper presented at the ‘Romanian Linguistics Afternoon’, Leiden University,  May. Nicolae, Alexandru (b). ‘On the syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives and the grammaticalization of the article cel’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Nicolae, Alexandru (c). Ordinea constituenților în limba română: O perspectivă diacronică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Nicolae, Alexandru (d). ‘The parameter of definiteness: Diachronic and synchronic evidence’. In Virginia Hill (ed.), Formal Approaches to DPs in Old Romanian. Boston/ Leiden: Brill, –. Nicolae, Alexandru (). ‘Word order and configurationality’. In SOR: –. Nicolae, Alexandru (). ‘Syntactic effects of the morphological status of the negative marker: negative imperatives vs negative gerunds’. In Verginica Barbu Mititelu, Mihaela Ionescu, and Gianina Iordăchioaia (eds), Lingvistică generală, lingvistică formală, lingvistică computațională: Omagiu profesorului Emil Ionescu la  de ani. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Nicolae, Alexandru and Dana Niculescu (). ‘On clitics and clitic clusters in Old Romanian: Verb movement and the Tobler-Mussafia Law’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , –: –. Nicolae, Alexandru and Dana Niculescu (). ‘Pronominal clitics: Clitic ordering, clitic clusters’. In SOR: –. Nicula Paraschiv, Irina (). ‘The direct object’. In SOR: –. Nicula Paraschiv, Irina and Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (). ‘The indirect object’. In SOR: –. Niculescu, Alexandru (). Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice, vol. . Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică. Niculescu, Alexandru (). ‘Observations sur les démonstratifs daco-roumains provenant du Lat. ’. Revue roumaine de linquistique , : –. Niculescu, Dana (). Mijloace lingvistice de exprimare a posesiei în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Niculescu, Dana (). Particularităţi sintactice ale limbii române din perspectivă tipologică: Gerunziul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Niculescu, Dana (). ‘The gerund and the gerundial construction’. In SOR: –. Olteanu, Pandele (). Sintaxa şi stilul paleoslavei şi slavonei. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică. Onu, Liviu (). ‘Bătu-te-ar norocul’. In Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la  de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Ordóñez, Francisco and Antxon Olarrea (). ‘Microvariation in Caribbean/non-Caribbean Spanish interrogatives’. Probus , : –. Ortmann, Albert and Alexandra Popescu (). ‘Romanian definite articles are not clitics’. In Birgit Gerlach and Janet Grijzenhout (eds), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Pană Afumatu, Cristina (). Topica verbelor auxiliare și a cliticelor pronominale în texte dialectale și relația cu limba română veche. PhD dissertation, ‘Iorgu Iordan–Al. Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics, Romanian Academy. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (). ‘Dificultăți de încadrare morfologică: La interferența mai multor părți de vorbire: mulţi, puţini’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Elemente de gramatică: Dificultăţi, controverse, noi interpretări. Bucharest: Humanitas, –. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (). ‘The subject’. In SOR: –. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (). ‘Inversion and nominal ellipsis: A special type of nominalization in Romanian’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives on Romance Syntax. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela and Adina Dragomirescu (). ‘Conclusions’. In SOR: –. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela, Adina Dragomirescu, and Isabela Nedelcu (). Morfosintaxa limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Paoli, Sandra (). COMP and the Left Periphery: Comparative Evidence from Romance. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Parodi, Claudia (). ‘Verb incorporation and the HMC in XVIth-century Spanish’. In Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall, M. Montalbetti, and M. Phinney (eds), Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (). ‘The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features’. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Platzack, Christer and Anders Holmberg (). ‘The role of AGR and finiteness in Germanic VO languages’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Poletto, Cecilia (). ‘The left periphery of a V-Rhaetoromance dialect: A new perspective on V and V’. In Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips, and Susanne van der Kleij (eds), Syntactic Microvariation: Proceedings of the Workshop on Syntactic Microvariation. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute, –. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/pdf/poletto.pdf. Poletto, Cecilia (). Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poletto, Cecilia (). ‘Negation’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Poletto, Cecilia and Jean-Yves Pollock (). ‘Arguing for remnant movement in Romance’. In Günther Grewendorf (ed.), Remnant Movement. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, –. Pollock, Jean-Yves (). ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Pollock, Jean-Yves (). ‘Three arguments for remnant movement in Romance’. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, vol. : Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Poole, Geoffrey (). ‘Interpolation and the left periphery in Old Spanish’. In Miri Hussein, Marina Kolokonte, and Clare Wright (eds), Newcastle and Northumbria Working Papers in Linguistics , –. Popescu-Marin, Magdalena. (). ‘Adjectivul’. In GALR I: –. Reinheimer Rîpeanu, Sanda (). Lingvistica romanică: Lexic – morfologie – sintaxă. Bucharest: All Universitar. Renzi, Lorenzo (). ‘L’articolo posposto rumeno in diacronia e in sincronia’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Repina, Tamara (). ‘Caracterul sintagmatic al declinării românești’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. RGR. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Ion Giurgea (eds) (). A Reference Grammar of Romanian, vol. : The Noun Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ribeiro, Ilza (). ‘Evidence for a verb‑second phase in Old Portuguese’. In Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Rinke, Esther and Martin Elsig (). ‘Quantitative evidence and diachronic syntax’. Lingua , : –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech’. The Linguistic Review , –: –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Patterns of V0-raising in long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak’. In Joseba A. Lakarra and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia, –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Long head movement vs. V, and null subjects in Old Romance’. Lingua , –: –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Clause-structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘On two locations for complement-clitic pronouns: SerboCroatian, Bulgarian and Old Spanish’. In Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘On the position of Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause’. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier, –. Roberts, Ian (). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian (). ‘Two types of head movement in Romance’. In David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein (eds), Verb Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Roberts, Ian (). Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Roberts, Ian (). ‘Some speculations on the development of the Romance periphrastic perfect’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Roberts, Ian (). ‘Object clitics’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou (). Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roehrs, Dorian (). ‘Demonstrative-reinforcer constructions’. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics , : –. Roehrs, Dorian (). ‘The inner makeup of definite determiners: The case of Germanic’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics , : –. Rosetti, Al. (). Istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Ross, John Robert (). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Rouveret, Alain (). ‘VP ellipsis, phases and the syntax of morphology’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Rutkowski, Paweł (). ‘Numerals as grammaticalised nouns: A generative approach’. Interlingüística , : –. Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi (). ‘Subject predication within IP and DP’. In Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts (eds), Beyond Principles and Parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –. Sala, Marius (). De la latină la română (nd edn). Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Salvi, Giampaolo (). ‘The two sentence structures of Early Romance’. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier, –. Salvi, Giampaolo (). La formazione della struttura di frase romanza: Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Salvi, Giampaolo (). ‘Some firm points on Latin word order: The left periphery’. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Salvi, Giampaolo (). ‘On the nature of the V system of Old Romance’. In Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto (eds), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. : Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Salvi, Giampaolo (). ‘Word order’. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Săvescu Ciucivara, Oana (). A Syntactic Analysis of Pronominal Clitic Clusters in Romance: The View from Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Schifano, Norma (). ‘(Un)marked patterns of verb-movement: the case of Romanian’. In Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Limba română: Sincronie şi diacronie în studiul limbii române, vol. : Gramatică. Fonetică şi fonologie. Istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Schifano, Norma (). ‘The paradigmatic instantiation of TAM: A novel approach to Romance verb-movement’. In Enoch O. Aboh (ed.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Schifano, Norma (). ‘Le lingue romanze: verso una cartografia del movimento del verbo’. In Adam Ledgeway, Michela Cennamo, and Guido Mensching (eds), Actes du XXVIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, – juillet ): Section : Syntaxe. Nancy, ATILF/SLR, –. Schifano, Norma (). Verb Movement in Romance: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sheehan, Michelle (). ‘The Final-over-Final condition and the Head-Final filter’. In Michelle Sheehan, Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts, and Anders Holmberg (eds), The Final-over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Simpson, Andrew and Saurov Syed (). ‘Blocking effects of higher numerals in Bangla: A phase-based approach’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Sitaridou, Ioanna (). ‘Word order and information structure in Old Spanish’. Catalan Journal of Linguistics : –. Sleeman, Petra (). Licensing Empty Nouns in French. The Hague: Holland Academic. SOR. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (). The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stan, Camelia (). ‘Notă gramaticală: conjuncţia ca ( . . . ) să’. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice , : –. Stan, Camelia (). ‘Grupul nominal românesc (aspecte diacronice)’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), Limba română: Dinamica limbii, dinamica interpretării. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, –. Stan, Camelia (). ‘Aspecte diacronice ale sintaxei articolului definit în limba română’. In Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, and Alexandru Nicolae (eds), Limba română: Direcții actuale în cercetarea lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din Bucuresti, –. Stan, Camelia (a). ‘The enclitic definite article, the proclitic indefinite article’. In GR: –. Stan, Camelia (b). O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Stan, Camelia (). ‘Some functions of the definite article in old Romanian’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae, and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Louise Esher (eds), Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Publishing Scholars, –. Stan, Camelia (a). ‘Demonstratives’. In SOR: . Stan, Camelia (b). ‘Polydefinite structures’. In SOR: –. Stan, Camelia (c). ‘The determiner cel’. In SOR: –. Stan, Camelia (d). ‘The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity’. In SOR: –. Stan, Camelia (). ‘Aspecte ale gramaticalizării articolului definit în limba română’. In Adina Chirilă (ed.), Omul de cuvânt. In honorem Gheorghe Chivu. Iași: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, –. Stateva, Penka (). ‘Possessive clitics and the structure of nominal expressions’. Lingua , : –. Stoica, Gabriela (). ‘Pronumele demonstrative’. In Liliana Ionescu-Ruxandoiu and Marius Sala (eds), Istoria limbii române, II: Româna comună. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic, –. Strawson, P.F. (). ‘Singular terms and predication’. Synthese , –: –. Stump, Gregory T. (). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Su, Yu-Ying Julia (). The Syntax of Functional Projections in the vP Periphery. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Suñer, Margarita (). ‘V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Syed, Saurov and Andrew Simpson (). ‘On the DP/NP status of nominal projections in Bangla: Consequences for the theory of phases’. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics , , : –. Szabolcsi, Anna (). ‘The possessor that ran away from home’. The Linguistic Review , : –. Tasmowski-De Ryck, Liliane (). ‘Câteva observaţii privind folosirea articolului definit şi a articolului adjectival’. Limbă şi literatură , : –. Tănase-Dogaru, Mihaela (). The Category of Number: Its Relevance for the Syntax and the Semantic Typology of the Nominal Phrase. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Tekavčić, Pavao (). Grammatica storica dell’italiano, vol. : Morfosintassi. Bologna: Il Mulino. Tescari Neto, Aquiles (). On Verb Movement in Brazilian Portuguese: A Cartographic Study. PhD dissertation, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice. Thoms, Gary (). ‘ “Verb floating” and VP-ellipsis: Towards a movement account of ellipsis licensing’. Linguistic Variation Yearbook : –. Thráinsson, Höskuldur (). ‘On the (non-)universality of functional categories’. In Werner Abraham, Samuel D Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Thurneysen, R. (). ‘Zur Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen’. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie : –. Timotin, Emanuela (). ‘Presenting the corpus: Typologizing, dating, and locating the texts’. In SOR: –. Tobler, Adolf (). ‘Besprechung von J. Le Coultre, De l’ordre des mots dans Chrétien de Troye’. Vermische Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik , –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi



References

Todi, Aida (). Elemente de sintaxă românească veche. Piteşti: Editura Paralela . Tortora, Christina (). ‘Romance enclisis, prepositions and aspect’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Tortora, Christina (). ‘Clausal domains and clitic placement generalizations in Romance’. In Karen Lahousse and Stefania Marzo (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Tortora, Christina (). A Comparative Grammar of Borgomanerese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (). ‘Syntax’. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. : The Beginnings to . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Uşurelu, Camelia (). ‘The grammaticalization of direct and indirect object doubling in Old Romanian’. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae, and Louise Esher (eds), Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Valois, Daniel (). The Internal Syntax of DP. PhD dissertation, UCLA. van Gelderen, Elly (). ‘Economy, innovation, and prescriptivism: from Spec to Head and Head to Head’. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics , : –. van Urk, Coppe (). A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Case Study of Dinka Bor. PhD dissertation, MIT. Vance, Barbara (). Syntactic Change in Medieval French: Verb second and Null Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vanelli, Laura (). ‘Strutture tematiche in italiano antico’. In Harro Stammerjohann (ed.), Tema-Rema in Italian. Tübingen: Narr, –. Vanelli, Laura (). ‘Ordine delle parole e articolazione pragmatica nell’italiano antico: la “prominenza” pragmatica della prima posizione nella frase’. Medioevo romanzo : –. Vasilescu, Andra (a). ‘Cel: categorie semilexicală’. In Rodica Zafiu, Blanca Croitor and Ana-Maria Mihail (eds), Studii de gramatică: Omagiu doamnei profesoare Valeria Guţu Romalo. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, –. Vasilescu, Andra (b). ‘Strategii pragmatice de reluare gramaticalizate ca relații apozitive de tip GN–GN’. Limba română , : –. Vasiliu, Emanuel and Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (). Limba română în secolele al XII-lea– al XV-lea: Fonetică, fonologie, gramatică. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din Bucureşti. Vasiliu, Laura (). ‘Atributul’. In Mioara Avram (ed.), Sintaxa limbii române în secolele al XVI-lea–al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Vicente, Luis (). The Syntax of Heads and Phrases: A Study of Verb (Phrase) Fronting. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations. Vikner, Sten (). Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Vincent, Nigel (). ‘The synchrony and diachrony of deixis in Old Neapolitan (with special reference to the Cronache e ricordi of Loise De Rosa)’. Ms., University of Manchester. von Reinhardstoettner, Carl (). Grammatik der portugiesischen Sprache auf Grundlage des Lateinischen und der romanischen Sprachvergleichung bearbeitet. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

References



Wackernagel, Jacob (). ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’. Indogermanische Forschungen : –. Williams, Edwin (). ‘Another argument that passive is transformational’. Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Willis, David (). ‘Verb movement in Slavonic conditionals’. In Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner (eds), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Wolfe, Sam (a). ‘Syntactic microvariation in the Medieval Romance languages and the nature of V reconsidered’. Paper presented at the SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge,  June. Wolfe, Sam (b). ‘Verb-initial orders in Old Romance: a comparative account’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , –: –. Zafiu, Rodica (). ‘Negaţia’. In GALR II: –. Zafiu, Rodica (). ‘Sintaxa’ [th c.]. In Gh. Chivu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu, and Irina Nicula (eds), Studii de istorie a limbii române: Morfosintaxa românei literare în secolele al XIX-lea–al XX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Zafiu, Rodica (). ‘Mood, tense, and aspect’. In GR: –. Zafiu, Rodica (). ‘Auxiliary encliticization in th century Romanian: Restrictions and regularities’. Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Zafiu, Rodica (). ‘The syntax of moods and tenses’. In SOR: –. Zafiu, Rodica (). ‘Marca de conjunctiv şi în texte vechi şi în graiurile româneşti actuale’. Paper presented at the th International Symposium of Linguistics, ‘Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest, – May. Zamfir, Dana-Mihaela (). Morfologia verbului în dacoromâna veche (secolele al XVI-lea–al XVII-lea), vol. . Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Zamfir, Dana-Mihaela (). Morfologia verbului în dacoromâna veche (secolele al XVI-lea–al XVII-lea), vol. . Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Zanuttini, Raffaella (). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zegrean, Iulia Georgiana (). Balkan Romance: Aspects of the Syntax of Istro-Romanian. PhD dissertation, Università Ca’Foscari, Venice. Zeijlstra, Hedde (). ‘There is only one way to agree’. The Linguistic Review , : –. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (). ‘The constraint on preverbal subjects in Romance interrogatives: A minimality effect’. In Aafke C. J. Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter (). Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Springer. Zwarts, Frans (). ‘On restricting base structure recursion in Dutch’. Ms., University of Amsterdam. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. (). ‘Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t’. Language , : –.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

Index A-bar movement , ,  adjacency constraint , , ,  adjective adjectival positions , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  agreement  AP-movement ,  movement of the definite ~  relational ~ – adverb  Cinquean/diagnosing verb-movement ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  clitic ~ , , , , , , , , , ,  high adverb space ,  low adverb space ,  scrambled ~ ,  Agree , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  long-distance ~ ,  Albanian  antilocality , ,  Anzese  appositional structure  Aromanian , ,  article adjectival ~ , , , , , , , , , – definite ~ , , ,  demonstrative ~  freestanding definite ~ (cel) , , , , , , , – low definite ~ , , , , –, , , –, , , , , ,  suffixal ~ , , , –, , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –, , –,  Arvantovlaxika  Asturian 

asymmetry matrix-embedded , , –, , , , , , –, , , ,  auxiliary , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  clustering effect  doubling ,  multiple ~  semi-auxiliary  status of ~ –,  Balkan  languages , , ,  Sprachbund , , , , ,  Barese  blocking effect , ,  ‘bottleneck effect’ , , ; see also V bridge context ,  Bulgarian , , ,  Calabrian ,  Campanian varieties  Casertano  Salentino  central Apennine dialects  Triestino  chiasmus  clitic adverbials  auxiliary  climbing ,  C(P)-oriented , , , ,  double (multiple) realization of pronominal ~ , , – I(P)-oriented , , , , , , , , ,  pronominal ~ , , , , , ,  clause-initial position  position of ~  reflexive ~ –, , , ,  second-position effects/elements ,  v-oriented/vP-edge cliticization site , , –, , , , , 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

Index complementizer doubling  high ~ , , , ,  low ~ ,  complex predicate , , , ,  modal ~ ,  Coordinate Structure Constraint ,  CP-DP parallelism ,  definiteness , , , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  ~ agreement , , , , , , , , , , , ,  double ~  Parameter of ~  polydefiniteness , –, , –, , , , – ~ realization , , ,  ~ valuation , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , ,  long distance ~ , – demonstrative adnominal ~ , , , , , –, –, , , ,  diachronic restructuring  postnominal , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, ,  prenominal , , , , ,  pronominal usage of ~ , ,  ~-reinforcer construction – specialization , , , –, ,  strong , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  origin of ~ – system – weak , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Dinka Bor  discontiguous linearizations involving higher functional elements  discontiguous verbal clusters , –, , ,  formal account of ~ –



interpolation , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  as stylistic device  in old Romanian – range of interpolated/interposed constituents –, – scrambling , , , , , , ,  IP-scrambling ,  scrambling in vP  short-distance ~  discontinuous AP – discontinuous DP , , , , , –, ,  double definite construction ,  Doubly Filled COMP Filter  Generalized ~ , ,  DP-edge –, , , ,  (pragmatic) fronting to ~ , , , , , , , , , , ,  DP-internal word order – DP hypothesis  DP-language ,  Dutch  edge-fronting , , , , , ,  pragmatic ~ ,  ellipsis  auxiliary-licensed ~ , , , ,  nominal ~ , , , , , , , , , , ,  English , , ,  extraction , , , , , , ,  left branch ~ , , ,  Final-over-Final Constraint/Condition (FOFC) ,  focus, focalization , , , , , –, , , , , , ,  contrastive ~ ,  emphatic ~  ~-fronting  information ~  presentational ~  scalar ~  verum ~  foreign syntactic pattern/feature/model , –, , , , , ,  French , , , , ,  old ~ , , , , , ,  Galician , ,  old ~ , 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Index

genitival-possessive marker –, ,  genitive/possessive adjective , , , , , , , , , ,  postnominal ~ , , , , , ,  prenominal ~ , , , ,  German  Germanic (languages) , , , , , , , , , , ,  grammaticalization , , , , , , , , , ,  Greek ancient ~ , 

late , , , , , , , , , ,  medieval  pre-classical  left periphery clausal , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  DP-internal , , , , , ,  vP-periphery ,  Ligurian  Long Head Movement (LHM) , , , , , 

head-directionality , ,  head-final , , , , , , ,  head-finality residual ~ – Head-Final Filter  head-initial  Head Preference Principle ,  Hungarian ,  hyperbaton , , , , , 

Megleno-Romanian  Mirror Principle  Moldovan Daco-Romanian 

Ibero-Romance ,  old/early ~  Indo-European  inversion , –, ,  in polar interrogatives  reanalysed as focus-marking  Subject-Auxiliary ~ (SAI) , , ,  V-Aux , , , , , , , , , , , ,  V-Cl , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  V-Cl-Aux , , , , , , ,  Istro-Romanian , , ,  Italian , , , , ,  old ~ , , , , , , ,  Italo-Romance , , ,  old ~  southern ~ ,  interpolation, see discontiguous verbal clusters language contact , ,  Latin , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  archaic ~ , , ,  classical ~  early ~ 

negation , –, , –, , ,  clausal ~/negator , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  negative clause , , , ,  negative concord  negative head  Neapolitan ,  old/early ~ , ,  nominal fronting  nominal phrase word order in the ~ – N0-movement , , ,  nP-movement  N(P)-movement/raising , –, , , , ,  head-movement , ,  high ~  locality of ~  low ~ ,  N-to-D movement ,  phrasal movement , , , , , ,  NP-language ,  NP/DP-parameter , , ,  Old Church Slavonic , , , , , , , , , ,  Occitan ,  old ~  old Romanian periodization  original/non-translated texts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi

Index translations , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  P(arametric)-ambiguity , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  phase  Phase Impenetrability Condition –, , – Polish old ~  Portuguese ,  European ~ , , ,  old (Galician-)Portuguese , , , , , , , , ,  Raeto-Romance  reanalysis , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  recomplementation , , ,  roll-up movement , , , , ,  Romance , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  medieval ~ , ,  old ~/early ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Sardinian  Scandinavian  scrambling, see discontiguous verbal clusters Serbian ,  Serbo-Croatian  Sicilian old/early ~ ,  Slavonic , , , ,  Spanish , , , , ,  Caribbean ~  old ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  split-C(P) , , , ,  split-DP , , , , –,  split-IP 



subjunctive ~ complementizer , , , , , , , , , ,  main clause ~ ,  inverted –, – substantivization , ,  sup-Merge ,  super-raising  supplementation  topic, topicalization , , , , , , , , , ,  aboutness ~  ~ continuity ,  contrastive ~ ,  hanging ~  Turinese  Tuscan  early ~  Tuscarora  Universal Base Hypothesis  V , –, ,  rhematic  narrative  V , ,  diagnostics – Germanic , , , , , ,  old Romance , –, , , , , ,  old Romanian , ,  reanalyzed as focus-marking strategy – relaxed/statistical , , , , , ,  residual , – strict ,  Venetian old ~  verb raising/V(erb)-movement , , , –, , , , , , ,  Aux-to-C movement , ,  Aux-to-Fin movement ,  head-to-spec movement  locality of ~  low ~ , , , , , , , , , , ,  phrasal movement , ,  V-fronting , , , ,  V-to-C movement , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/4/2019, SPi



Index

verb raising/V(erb)-movement (cont.) V-to-Foc  V-to-I movement , , , , , , , , –, , , , , – V0-to-Spec analysis , 

V-to-FinP  ~ through specifiers  wh-elements , , , , , , , , 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

                                                  Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge   Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge   From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway  Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar  Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach  The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith  The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth  Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale  Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto  Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent  Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro  The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss  Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden  The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth  Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen  Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden  Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen  Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe  Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu  The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan  Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reinöhl  The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill  Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso  Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

 The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert  Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John J. Lowe  Quantitative Historical Linguistics A Corpus Framework Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray  Gender from Latin to Romance History, Geography, Typology Michele Loporcaro  Clause Structure and Word Order in the History of German Edited by Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi, and Helmut Weiß  Word Order Change Edited by Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso  Arabic Historical Dialectology Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes  Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective Edited by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine  Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou  Indefinites between Latin and Romance Chiara Gianollo  Verb Second in Medieval Romance Sam Wolfe  Referential Null Subjects in Early English Kristian A. Rusten  Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective Alexandru Nicolae

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/4/2019, SPi

I            Dative External Possessors in Early English Cynthia L. Allen Cycles in Language Change Edited by Miriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert, and Elisabeth Witzenhausen Redevelopment of Case Systems in Indo-Aryan Miriam Butt Classical Portuguese Grammar and History Charlotte Galves, Aroldo de Andrade, Christiane Namiuti, and Maria Clara Paixão de Sousa Morphological Borrowing Francesco Gardani Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Reconstructing Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialects Alexander Magidow The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar Edited by Sam Wolfe and Martin Maiden Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives André Zampaulo