Cover not available

In:Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 57–78

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 3
Definite determiners in Romance

The role of modification

 | Concordia University
Published online: 10 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.03isa
Abstract
The definite article in Eastern Romance (ER) is overtly expressed as a suffix on the noun. However, with objects of prepositions (Ps) the definite article can be null, unless the P object is modified, in which case the definite article must be overt. In order to account for this variation in the overtness of the definite article, I propose that definite Ds must undergo M-merge in ER and that the definite D is spelled out overtly only if D M-merges with a head that bears a definiteness ([def]) feature. ER languages display micro-variation with respect to which particular item in the DP can host the definite article, and with respect to whether the definite article in unmodified objects of Ps must, or simply can, be null. Micro-variation is accounted for by (i) the feature content of the Number head, and (ii) whether the M-merge rule applies strictly locally or not.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Existing literature
  • 3.Theoretical background
    • 3.1Features
    • 3.2Prepositions
    • 3.3Nominal phases and their peripheries
    • 3.4The number phrase
    • 3.5Adjectives
  • 4.Proposal
    • 4.1M-merge
    • 4.2Spell-out
  • 5.Implementation of the analysis
    • 5.1Num heads and the expression of definiteness
      • 5.1.1Num1: [uN],[ua:]/EPP
      • 5.1.2Num2: [uN],[ua:]/EPP,[uc:+]
      • 5.1.3Num3: [uN],[uc:+]/EPP
      • 5.1.4Num4: [uN]/EPP,[uc:+]
    • 5.2Romanian
    • 5.3Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian
    • 5.4Northern Aromanian (NAr)
    • 5.5Southern Aromanian (SAr)
    • 5.6To sum up
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
References (29)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics today 42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campos, Hector. 2005. Noun modification, pseudo-articles, and last resort operations in Arvantovlaxika and in Romanian. Lingua 115: 311–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cândroveanu, Hristu. 1977. Antologie de proză aromână. Bucharest: Editura Univers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capidan, Theodor. 1935. Meglenoromânii – Dicṭionar meglenoromân, Volume 3. Bucharest: Cultura Naṭională/ Academia Română. Studii şi Cercetări XXV.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In David Michaels Martin & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Gugliemo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2004. Relative Adjectives. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (1): 50–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Romanian demonstratives and minimality. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 7(1): 102–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alexandru Nicolae. 2009. On the syntax of Romanian definite phrases. Changes in the patterns of definiteness checking. In Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation, and change, 193–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Nominal Peripheries and phase structure in the Romanian DP. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 56(1): 35–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Anca Dinu. 2013. Adjectives and specificity. Revue roumaine de linguistique 58(4): 455–480.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Ion Giurgea. 2006. The Suffixation of Definite Articles in Balkan Languages. Revue roumaine de linguistique 51. 73–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2005. At the left periphery of the Romanian noun phrase. In Martine Coene & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), On space and time in language, 23–49. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell: Malden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lopez, Luis. 2009. A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford, OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2006. Why on table is on the table? Notes on the definite article’s incorporation with prepositions in Romanian. In Beata Gyuri (ed.), Proceedings of the First Central Europe Student Conference in Linguistics, 1–12. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Catholic University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:69–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Tense, Case and the Nature of Syntactic Categories. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, and Alexander Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, 495–538. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & E. Torrego. 2007. 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. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saramandu, Nicolae. 2007. Aromâna vorbită în Dobrogea. Bucharest: Editura academiei române.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saramandu, Nicolae, Marilena Tiugan, Irina Floarea & Alina Celac. 2011. Dicționar meglenoromân. Fonetică şi dialectologie, 30. 51–115. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tănase-Dogaru, Mihaela. 2012. The Syntax of Quantity and Quality in Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universității.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teodorescu, Alexandra. 2006. Adjective ordering restrictions revisited. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 25), 399–407. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomic, Olga. 2006. Balkan Sprachbund Morphosyntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zegrean, Iulia-Georgiana. 2012. Balkan Romance: Aspects on the Syntax of Istro-Romanian. Venice, Italy: Università Ca’Foscari Venezia dissertation.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue