Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T21:13:48.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Preverbal Positions in Romanian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Virginia Motapanyane
Virginia Motapanyane*
Affiliation:
University of New Brunswick, Saint John
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The concepts of X-bar theory are fundamental to the framework of generative grammar. The last version of the theory (Chomsky 1992) defines the projected positions as either narrowly or broadly L(exically)-related to the head X, where “L-relation” means inclusion in the checking domain of X. Narrowly L-related positions, nonadjoined (e.g., Spec), obey structure preserving rules; they have the basic properties of A-positions. Broadly L-related positions, adjoined and optional, have the properties of A’-positions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 15 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belletti, Adriana 1990 Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1977 On Wh-movement. Pp. 71–132 in Formal Syntax. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas and Akmajian, Adrian, eds. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1992 A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1990 Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 1990 Clitic Doubling, Wh-Movement, and Quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21:351–397.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 1991 The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance. Ms.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda 1988 La structure interne du VP en Hollandais. Paper read at Séminaire interdépartemental de recherche en linguistique, Université de Genève, Geneva.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique 1988 Subjects. Ms.Google Scholar
Lema, Jose, and Rivero, Maria-Luisa 1989 Long Head Movement: ECP vs. HMC. Pp. 333–347 in Proceedings of NELS 20. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.Google Scholar
Motapanyane, Virginia 1991 Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Ph.D. thesis. Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1982 Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1986 On the Status of the Subject Clitics in Romance. Pp. 391–420 in Studies in Romance Linguistics. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Silva-Corvalan, Carmen, eds. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael, and Culicover, Peter 1990 English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. MIT.Google Scholar
Rudin, Catherine 1992 Topic and Focus in Bulgarian. Ms.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique 1988 A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425–449.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert 1992 Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar