(De)-Focussing and Object Raising in Romanian

Abstract

This article argues that VOS structures in Romanian are derived from a basic VSO word order and, consequently, involve object raising out of VP, across the subject left in situ. Binding interactions and the availability of raising quantified NPs clause-medially provide syntactic support for an A-movement analysis of the raised objects. In contrast to other languages that allow (or require) movement of objects to argumental positions, it is argued that in Romanian VOS structures the object does not move for the purposes of Case checking nor does object raising entail a strong, definite interpretation of the moved NP. Rather, object raising is an instance of de-focussing, made possible by a strong nominal feature on the abstract verb v.

Optionality at the Interface: Triggering Focus in Romanian

“…Nonetheless, if pragmatics and the stylistic component are perceived as PF properties (see Chomsky 2000, Holmberg 1999, Kidwai 1999, the omnipresence of OCC can still be maintained with [Foc]. I suggest this is not the correct avenue to pursue given evidence that pragmatic displacements (i.e., the presence of OCC) can affect binding relationships in Romanian, as discussed in Alboiu (1999) and the following section. OCC as a requirement of the semantic component can account for both interpretive effects and effects of the syntax-pragmatics interface to which PF is blind.…”

“…ring-the / a ring (Smeagol) 'Smeagol found the ring/a ring.' Gierling (1997) and Alboiu (1999Alboiu ( , 2002 independently show that, in Romanian, objects can undergo movement to a position outside of the vP domain but below T (i.e., not within the preverbal domain). Alboiu (1999Alboiu ( , 2002 argues that VOS constructions are derived from VSO sequences and involve object raising across the subject and left-adjunction to vP for derhematization purposes.…”

Syntactic case and DP (in)visibility

“…Checking EPP via expletive pro, ensures that the subject, a semantically relevant DP, is positionally flexible to occupy structural positions with various semantic and pragmatic relevance with the effect of what is often referred to as a "free word-order" language. 28 For example, I have argued in previous work (Alboiu 1999(Alboiu , 2002 that Romanian exploits syntactic structure to encode information structure. In Alboiu (2002), I show that Romanian preverbal DPs are subject to a specificity effect, hence discourse configurationally displaced.…”

Operator Asymmetries in Romanian

“…8 Gierling (1997) and Alboiu (1999Alboiu ( , 2002 show that, in Romanian, objects can undergo movement for de-rhematization purposes to a position outside of the vP domain but below T, as shown by the vP-adjoined adverb. Furthermore, contrastive focus stress and interpretation is also available (but not required) in this intermediary position.…”

“…In Alboiu (1999Alboiu ( , 2002 it is argued extensively that the intermediary position is an instance of evacuation for (rhematic) focus (i.e., movement for avoiding the rhematic domain). Given that this type of movement need not have a contrastive focus correlate, it is not the result of focus feature movement and falls outside the scope of the present discussion.…”