Alexandra Cornilescu

Romanian nominalizations: case and aspectual structure

Two Romanian nominalizations, the infinitive and the supine, are compared in Noun+Object (NO) and Noun+Subject (NS) structures, regarding their ability to yield e-(vent)/r-(esult) readings. The NO structures behave alike and yield e-readings. The two NS structures contrast sharply: the infinitive NS is always an r-nominal, the supine NS may be an e-nominal. This contrast between the infinitive and the supine follows from their aspectual properties. While the supine is [−Telic], and may project either an Object or a Subject in e-nominals, the infinitive is [+Telic], and REQUIRES the projection of the Object. This constraint may follow from the fact that in nominals Aspect and Case are checked in the same projection.

Classified Proper Names in Old Romanian: Person and Definiteness

Philosophers have always considered proper names (= PNs) as paradigmatic examples of referential expressions, and are currently still debating on the two hypotheses regarding the functioning of PNs, namely (a) the theory of PNs as definite descriptions (in the wake of Frege 1892, an approach recently illustrated by Geurts 1997, Matushansky 2006) and (b) the theory of direct reference /rigid designation (a theory initiated by Mill (1843), and Russell 1905, and made famous by Kaplan 1964 and Kripke 1971). On the other hand, linguists have concentrated on other problems, one of them being the extent to which PNs represent a class distinct from common nouns (= CNs). The distinction was usually set in semantic terms: CNs have descriptive sense, while PNs are devoid of descriptive content. The idea that PNs do not have meaning is apparently contradicted by the possibility of using PNs as predicates: El este un Eminescu. In the present paper we disregard predicative uses of PNs and restrict the discussion to argumental uses of PNs. In terms of a formal grammar, the difference between PNs and CNs should follow from the fact that they are characterized by distinct formal features, which it is incumbent on us to specify. The aim of this paper is twofold. On the one hand we develop a hypothesis on the structure of DPs headed by PNs in languages like Romanian (Sections 1-4). This will allow us to give an account of the constructions typical of PNs in Modern Romanian. In the second part of the paper (sections 5-6) we discuss the syntax of PNs in Old Romanian, focusing on the passage from CNs to PNs as attested in Romanian and describing the more complex structure of PNs in older stages of Romanian.

Romanian adjectives at the syntax-semantics interface

In this paper, we argue for the existence of two local domains (phases, cf. Chomsky 2001; 2009; Legate 2003, among others) inside the DP: the n*-phase, parallel to the vP (as in Svenonius 2004), and the d*-phase, parallel to the CP. Two acknowledged phasal properties are discussed. (i) The n*/d*-phases define their own peripheries: peripheries are essentially modal-quantificational spaces, as shown by the decomposition of Topic—Focus features recently proposed (Butler 2004; McNay 2005; 2006). (ii) Phases are assumed to be domains of linearization: after (internal or external) merge, syntactic objects are hierarchical, but not linear, so phases must be linearized before they are sent to PF. The distribution and interpretation of DP-internal adjectives is taken to be indicative of these two domains.