The Syntax of Romanian

The Syntax of Romanian
Studies in Generative Grammar
Editors
Jan Kster
Henk van Riemsdijk
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York

Comparative Studies in Romance
by
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York
1994
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)

is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by
Foris Publications Holland.
Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen,
The Syntax of Romanian : comparative studies in Romance /
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin,
p.
cm. (Studies in generative grammar ; 40)
Originally presented as the author's thesis (These d'Etat).
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3-11-013541-8 (cloth)
1. Romanian language Syntax. 2. Romanian language
Verb. 3. Romanian languageGrammar, Generative.
4. Romanian languageGrammar, ComparativeRomance.
5. Romance languages Grammar, Comparative Romanian.
6. Romance languages Syntax. 7. Romance languagesVerb.
8. Romance languages Grammar, Generative.
I. Title. II. Series.
PC725.D63
1993
459'.5 dc20
93-5554
CIP
Die Deutsche Bibliothek Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen:
The syntax of Romanian : comparative studies in romance / by Carmen
Dobrovie-Sorin. Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1993
(Studies in generative grammar ; 40)
ISBN 3-11-013541-8
NE: GT
Copyright 1993 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin.

All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printing: Gericke GmbH, Berlin. Binding: Lderitz & Bauer, Berlin
Printed in Germany.
Ce serait entreprendre le rcit d'un cauchemar que de vous raconter par le menu
l'histoire de mes relations avec cet idiome d'emprunt [le frangais], avec tous ces
mots pensis et repenss, affinis, subtils jusqu' l'inexistence, courbis sous les
exactions de la nuance, inexpressifs pour avoir tout exprim, effrayants de
prdcision, chargis de fatigue et de pudeur, discrets jusque dans la vulgarity [...]
plus aucune trace de terre, de sang, d'me en eux. Une syntaxe d'une raideur,
d'une dignity cadavirique les enserre et leur assigne une place d'ou Dieu meme ne
pourrait les ddloger. [...] sans quoi jamais je n'eusse abandonnd la notre [le
roumain], dont il m'arrive de regretter l'odeur de fraicheur et de pourriture, le
mlange de soleil et de bouse, la laideur nostalgique, le superbe d6braillement
. M. Cioran, Histoire et Utopie
Preface
This book started out as a translation of my Thfese d'Etat, but it has become a
quite different piece of work. Chapters 1 through 4, as well as chapter 7 are entirely
new. The central ideas of chapters 5 and 6 go back to my dissertation, but have
been revised in essential ways. Chapter 6 is reprinted from Linguistic Inquiry
(1990, 3) without any change in content; because of technical difficulties, the
numbering of examples differs from the version in Linguistic Inquiry, but
everything else is identical.
During the four years I spent writing this book, I greatly benefited from
opportunities to present my ideas to other people. Preliminary versions of the whole
book were presented in various talks in Paris, in a research course at Stony Brook
(1992) and in talks given at the University of Bucarest and the Romanian Academy
of Sciences. These visits were made possible by financial support from the CNRS.
During my stays in Bucarest (1990-1992), Stony Brook and (1991-1992),
discussions with Noam Chomsky, Pusi Cornilescu, Dan Finer, Irene Heim, Jim
Higginbotham, Peter Ludlow, Richard Larson, Eric Reuland and Anna Szabolcsi,
were especially fruitful. The central idea of Chapter 7 was first presented at the LF
Conference in Tilburg (1988), and in a more refined form in Le Deuxifeme Congrs
des Langues Romanes (Groningen 1992), GLOW 1992 (Lisbon), and talks given
in MIT, Stony Brook and New Jersey (1992). Parts of chapter 5 were presented in
Going Romance (Utrecht 1991) and Linguistica Romena Oggi (Venice 1992).
Chapters 1 and 2 were presented at CUNY. I am extremely grateful to the
audiences at these events, notably Guglielmo Cinque, Giuliana Giusti, Ruohmei
Hsieh, Richie Kayne, Tony Kroch, Pino Longobardi, Ken Safir and Eriko SatoZhu for challenging questions and insightful criticism.
Several people gave me helpful comments on preliminary drafts of the
manuscript. Among them, I am especially indebted to Anna Cardinaletti, Dan Finer,
Daniele Godard, Sandu Grosu, Maria Teresa Guasti, Jacqueline Guiron, Sarah
Kennelly, Richard Larson, Peter Ludlow, Lea Nash, Hans Obenauer, Georges
Rebuschi, Henk van Riemsdijk, Maria-Luisa Rivero, Isabelle Simatos and Elisabeth
Villalta, Anne Zribi-Hertz. The acknowledgments for Chapter 6 are reproduced
with it. Special thanks go to Antoine Culioli, Richard Kayne and Jean Claude
Milner for having shown me how to become a linguist and to Irene Heim and Anna
Szabolcsi for their invaluable help with Chapter 7 .
The manuscript was more or less completed in September 1990, and circulated
in preliminary versions since then. In preparing the final text, I received editorial
assistance from Mouton de Gruyter Publishers, and technical assistance from the
staff of the Linguistics Department of the University of Paris 7. Finally, I would
like to thank Sarah Kennelly and Kristin Stromberg for having tried to improve the
style of my English and Elisabeth Villalta for having compiled the Index.
Table of Contents
IX
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
1. Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents
VII
XIII
1
1.1. Auxiliary constructions

1. 1. 1. Auxiliaries and tense features
1. 1.2. Auxiliaries and generalized V-raising
1. 1. 3. "V-second" constructions (subject-Aux/V inversion; Aux-to-Comp)
1. 1. 4. Biclausal auxiliary structures (I)
Conclusions
1. 2. The structure of auxiliary constructions
1. 2. 1. Biclausal auxiliary structures ()
1. 2. 2. Raising constructions
1. 2. 3. Monoclausal auxiliary structures
Conclusions
1. 3. Auxiliaries, bare infinitives and the distribution of clitics
1. 3. 1. Auxiliaries and bare infinitives
1. 3. 2. Bare infinitives and clitic adverbs
1. 4. Auxiliary structures and Long Head Movement
1.4. 1 Auxiliary inversion and the ECP
1. 4. 2. On the absence of auxiliary inversion
1. 4. 3. Inverted conjugations and relativized minimality
1. 4. 4. Modals
1. 5. The licensing of verbs, auxiliaries and types of IP constituents
1. 5. 1. IP structvfre and auxiliaries
1. 5. 2. Auxiliary configurations and the Tense filter
1.5.3. The licensing of verbs embedded under modals
1.5. 4. "Biclausal" tenses
1. 5. 5. Towards a definition of auxiliaries
1.6. The perfect auxiliary fi 'be'
Conclusions
Appendix
2
5
6
12
14
15
15
15
18
20
23
24
24
26
27
29
31
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
40
41
45
47
2. Clitic Placement and the rule of Move I-to-C
49
2. 1. Cliticization in Romance languages

2. 1. 1 Clitic Placement as adjunction to Infi
2. 1.2. Clitic Placement as adjunction to IP
2. 1. 3. Two instances of Move Infl-to-Comp: V-second and V-preposing
2. 1. 4. The ECP and Merging
2. 1. 5. The adjacency condition on Merging
Conclusions
49
50
53
55
57
59
61
2. 2. Romanian clitics
2. 2. 1. Deriving linear order from hierarchical structure
2. 2. 2. A definition of clitics
2. 3. The rule of V-preposing and clitic Merging
2. 3. 1. Adverbial clitics and V-preposing
2.3.2. Move I lands in Comp
2. 3. 3. Negation
2. 3. 4. Proclisis, enclisis and Merging
Conclusions
2. 4. Move I-to-C (V-preposing) in auxiliary structures
2. 4. 1. The distribution of clitics in auxiliary structures
2. 4. 2. Auxiliary inversion and endoclitic pronouns
Conclusions .
Appendix: A diachronic note: early Romance inverted conjugations
62
63
65
66
66
67
68
70
72
72
73
78
79
80
3. The constituent structure of infinitives and subjunctives
82
3. 1. The constituent structure of infinitival clauses

3. 1. 1. The categorial status of a
3. 1.2. The structure of infinitival IP constituents
3. 1. 3. Control structures
3. 2. The constituent structure of subjunctive clauses
3. 2. 1. The categorial status of s
3. 2. 2. The structure of subjunctive IP constituents
3. 2. 3. On certain differences between subjunctives and indicatives
3. 2. 4. On the difference between CP and IP
3. 2. 5. The doubly filled Comp filter and predication
3. 2. 6. Comp and left dislocated elements
82
82
87
91
93
93
98
104
106
107
109
4. Subject anaphors in subjunctive clauses
112
4. 1. The data: control, subject raising and obviation

4. 2. PRO and control structures
4. 3. On the contextual identification of anaphors
4. 4. Subject raising
4. 5. Obviation
4. 6. The constituent structure of Romanian subjunctives
4. 7. The governing category of the subject of Romanian subjunctives
4. 8. The null subject of Romanian infinitives
Conclusions
112
114
115
118
120
121
122
126
126
5. Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)transitives
128
Introduction
5. 1. Passives with (in)transitives
5. 1. 1. The data
128
129
129
Table of Contents XI
5. 1.2. Null prototypical arguments: saturation in the Lexicon

and syntactic realization
5. 1. 3. The passivization of (in)transitives and the
relation
between the lexical and the syntactic components
5. 1.4. French impersonals and passive (in)transitives
5. 1. 5. An indexing condition on the chains underlying
null prototypical arguments
Conclusions
5. 1.6. Further evidence in favour of the indexing condition
5. 2. Passive se with (in)transitives
5. 2. 1. Copula passives and passive se
5. 2. 2. Passive se with (in)transitives in Romanian
5. 2. 3. Passive se with (in)transitives in French
Conclusions
5. 3. Remarks on certain contrasts between Romanian and Italian
5. 3. 1. Subject si in Italian
5. 3. 2. Unaccusative verbs and passive se
5. 3. 3. On the ambiguity of Italian si with (in)transitives
5. 3. 4. An alternative analysis
Appendix 1: Indexed elements and indexed chains
Appendix 2: On Case assignment in passives
145
153
154
167
168
169
172
175
175
175
179
183
185
187
193
6. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification
196
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
197
197
202
204
1. Quantification and movement in wh-structures

1. 1. Wh-structures and the clitic doubling of direct objects
1.2. Romanian wh-structures that do not involve quantification
1.3. The quantifier status of wh-phrases
1.4. Wh-structures and quantification: lexical wh-phrases
versus structural quantifiers
6. 2. Quantification and movement in Left Dislocations
6.2.1. The two types of Left Dislocation
6. 2. 2. The CLLD of quantified NPs (QNPs)
6. 3. Quantified NPs and Quantifier Raising
6. 3. 1. Bare quantifiers
6. 3. 2. Clitic doubling and specificity
6. 3. 3. Scope ambiguities
6. 3. 4. Prepositional accusatives and specificity
6. 4. Indirect objects
6. 4. 1. Clitic doubling of indirect objects and quantification
6. 4. 2. Romanian relatives and interrogatives containing cruia
6. 4. 3. Clitic Left Dislocation of indirect objects
Appendix - Italian CLLD
132
137
140
210
218
218
220
223
223
224
229
234
236
236
239
240
240
XII The Syntax of Romanian
7. What does QR raise?
242
7. 1. Two LF rules: NPR and DR

7. 2. LF representations and NP denotations
7. 2. 1. DR + N'-incorporation: the amount reading
7. 2. 2. DR + NPR: the presuppositional and the existential readings
7. 2. 3. NPR: the referential
reading
Summary
7. 3. Locality conditions on DR
7. 3. 1. Prepositional accusatives and DR
7. 3. 3. Other quantified pronouns
7. 4. DR and wh-movement
7. 5. On the licensing of A'-bound empty categories
7. 5. 1. Null operators, wh-agreement and wh-configurations
7. 5. 2. A'-licensers
7. 5. 3. DR and bare wh-quantifiers
7. 5. 4. Wh-strategies and the constituent structure of S and S'
7. 6. Three LF representations for how many
Summary
7. 7. DR, referentiality and locality
7. 7. 1. Rizzi's (1990) conditions on A'-movement
7. 7. 2. Reconstruction, DR and the locality of wh-movement
7. 7. 3. The long wh-movement of non-D-linked wh-phrases
7.7.4. The long wh-movement of D-linked adjuncts
Conclusions
7. 8. Weak islands and scope
7. 8. 1. Asymmetries between topicalization and wh-movement
7. 8. 2. Bare quantifiers and scope
7. 8. 3. Weak islands block narrow scope
Appendix 1: Non referentiality without DR
Appendix 2: Strong determiners
242
243
244
245
248
249
250
251
254
257
259
260
260
261
262
263
264
264
265
265
266
268
271
272
273
273
274
274
275
276
Bibliography
Index of names
Index of subjects
278
290
293
Introduction XIII
Introduction
The chapters of this book are the best answers I have so far found to a number of
intriguing questions, whose common format is: why is a given phenomenon found
in Romanian but not in (the) other Romance languages? This type of question has
become central in generative grammar only recently, after a major theoretical shift
took place, which led from rule-based models towards what is currently called the
"principles and parameters" framework adopted in the Pisa lectures.
This conceptual move has fundamentally modified our hypotheses concerning
the common properties of natural languages. Within the older system, the various
grammars of natural languages were viewed as sets of rules, completely distinct
from each other, developed through language acquisition. Questions of comparative
syntax could not be asked because the assumption was that any given set of rules
(and in particular a given natural language) was different from any other set of
rules: universal grammar was essentially a specification of the general format of
these rules. Within the present framework, the theory consists of general principles
which are supposed to be common across natural languages, and therefore they can
be tested on any particular natural language.
This view immediately raises the question of crosslinguistic variation. Why do
natural languages, viewed now as instantiations of general principles, appear to be
so different from one another? A plausible hypothesis is that languages differ from
each other by a restricted number of primitive differences which, given the
deductive power of the theory, have wide-ranging, apparently unconnected
consequences. The primitive differences are conceived of as different values of
open "parameters". Thus, the existence of parameters is an empirical hypothesis
inherent to the principles framework; parameters bridge the gap between the
general, supposedly universal, principles of language and the quite wide range of
observable crosslinguistic variation: Universal Grammar would contain, along with
general principles, a set of parameters, whose values (in general restricted to two,
positive and negative) are set differently across languages. One important goal of
current research is to determine the relevant parameters, through a careful
investigation of comparative data. Set against this background, the detailed study of
any particular language sheds light on the analysis of the others, and may
sometimes lead to revisions of the principles themselves.
The label "principles-and-parameters" thus appears to designate two distinct
things, on the one hand a highly articulated theory (a system of principles organized
in distinct modules: government, binding, X'-theory, etc.) and on the other hand an
important empirical hypothesis concerning language variation, and a research
program associated with it. Part of this research program is the formulation of the
theory of parameters itself: (a) what the general format of a parameter should be;
(b) on what kind of elements, structural configurations or relations it should bear;
(c) what levels or modules of the grammar are in principle open to parametric
variation; (d) how many values a parameter may take, etc. Tentative answers can be
found in the literature, but I do not think there is any emerging agreement on any of
these fundamental issues. This means that what makes it possible for generative
grammar to deal with comparative syntax is not the "parametric", but the
"principles" framework.
XIV The syntax of Romanian
It is clear that parameters represent a powerful descriptive device, which should

be drastically constrained in order for our analyses to achieve a satisfactory degree
of explanatory adequacy. It is possible to constrain the possible types of parameters
on the basis of the principles themselves. 1 One possibility is to assume that
languages differ with respect to the primitive elements or categories which are
involved in the definition of the various general principles. The list given in (1) is
based on the one in Lefebvre and Muysken (1985). The elements in parentheses are
open for variation, i.e., they are relevant in certain languages, but not in others; the
elements without parentheses are supposed to be common to all languages:
(1)
a. Binding nodes are NP, S', (AP), (PP), (S).

b. In order to be accessible to Move ae, an element ae must be marked with
features such as (+Wh), +N, (+Q), (+R).
c. Heads are , A, V, P, (INFL), (COMP).
d. Proper governors are V, (A), (N), (P), (AGR).
As observed by Lefebvre and Muysken, the explanatory power of this kind of

parameter is not obvious, and we do not know if it is possible to derive them from
other, more abstract, differences between languages. But in any case, they are a
possibility suggested by our theory, and as such should be taken into account if we
try to define our parameters in a deductive way, on the basis of our theory.
Another type of possible parametric variation is related to the modularity of the
model. Given the relative independence of the various modules (government,
binding, Case, th-theory) and levels of representation, it is possible to assume that
languages differ with respect to the modules or levels at which a given principle or
general rule applies. A well-known example is Huang's (1982) hypothesis that whmovement applies at S-structure in certain languages, but only at LF in other
languages. Another case in point is Hale's (1983) proposal that in "non
configurational" languages the projection principle holds only for Lexical Structure
but not for syntax.
One part of the grammar which is in principle open to parametric variation is the
Lexicon, a possibility that has been extensively used in the recent literature (see in
particular Borer (1984), who restricts the domain of parametrization to inflectional
elements). The motivation which is frequently invoked is the fact that Lexicons are
clearly language-particular; parameter setting would apply in the process of
acquisition of the Lexicon, which is independently needed. This motivation has
been recently undermined by Gleitman (1990) who has shown that the acquisition
of the Lexicon relies on syntactic bootstrapping: the child uses the observed
syntactic structures as evidence for deducing the meanings of words (verbs in
particular); compare semantic bootstrapping (Grimshaw (1981), Pinker (1984,
1987), by which the structures would be deduced from the word meanings that are
antecedently acquired from the observation of events.
Most of the analyses presented in this book provide empirical evidence against a
number of particular parametrizations of the Lexicon that can be found in the
literature, and propose instead parametrical options that pertain to constituent
structure. My linguistic arguments thus meet Gleitman's psycholinguistic evidence.
leave aside psycholinguistic considerations, which may lead us to formulate leamability
constraints.
Introduction XV
One type of parameter that has been frequently proposed recently relies on
abstract features (I use the term "abstract feature" to refer to pairs of opposite
features that do not correspond to any overt, phonological difference) such as [+/strong] or [+/- pron] Infi, [+/- referential] or [+/- argumental] pronominal clitics,
etc. According to Aoun (1981, 1985) languages may differ from one another with
respect to the type of clitics that they present: four types can be defined on the basis
of features such as [+/-referential] and [+/- Case]; according to Cinque (1988), the
reflexive clitic se/si may be characterized as [+/- argumental], and Romance
languages differ from one another by the particular choice they make with respect
to these features. One problem with this kind of proposal is the fact that features
such as [+/- referential] or [+/- argumental] do not - and should not be allowed to count among the primitive notions of our theory; such features are quite often mere
abbreviations for structural observations. Thus, the label "[-referential] clitics" used
by Aoun designates clitics that are allowed to double R-expressions (and variables
in particular). This is a direct empirical observation concerning syntactic
configurations, and as far as I can see there is no evidence regarding the nature of
the clitic itself.2 Parameters stated in terms of abstract features of lexical items may
thus obscure structural differences. Analyses relying on abstract features are
currently presented as an "explanation" for a number of observable phenomena; it
seems to me that instead of an explanation we simply give an abstract name to the
observed phenomena, without any further understanding. In Chapters 5 and 6 of
this book it will be shown that for a number of cases not only do abstract features
fail to explain an observed phenomenon, but moreover they postulate a nonexistent
difference between languages or between two elements in a given language: it is I
think undebatable that, contrary to Aoun (1981, 1985), there is no difference in the
clitic systems of Romanian and (River Plate) Spanish.3
The use of "referential" features calls for further comment. I do not think that a
given linguistic element can be said to be either "referential" or "non referential"
independently of the syntactic context in which it appears. Therefore referential
properties should not be directly introduced as features characterizing linguistic
elements, but rather read off the syntactic representation. An adequate theory of
reference must provide (a) a formal procedure that freely assigns indices
(independently of referential properties); (b) well-formedness conditions on
configurations of indices; (c) interpretive procedures by which given configurations
of indices are associated with referential properties (for a specific proposal see
Chapter 5). Given the chain formalism, it is reasonable to assume that referential
properties are only relevant at the level of the chain, and not at the level of the
elements of the chain. Thus, even if we could use the features [+/-referential], we
still would not be able to use it for clitics, but only for clitic chains.
2
It is well-known that different distributional patterns of clitics do not necessarily correlate with
different types of clitics. According to "Kayne's generalization" - for which Jaeggli (1982) has
provided a principled explanation - it is indeed possible to maintain that the possibility of clitic
doubling is not due to the nature of the clitics, but rather to the existence of prepositional
Accusatives. In Dobrovie-Sorin (1990) reprinted here as Chapter 6,1 have shown that Romanian
clitics behave exactly as Spanish clitics regarding Jaeggli's generalization that variables (more
precisely variables bound by "weak" wh-phrases) cannot be clitic-doubled.
3This does not mean that Aoun's parametrization of clitic systems may not prove correct for other
languages.
XVI The syntax of Romanian
One important disadvantage related to the use of abstract features is that it tends
to increase the number of cases of synonymy and homonymy in the syntax and the
morphology of natural languages, which decreases explanatory power (explanatory
accounts of linguistic phenomena aim at reducing synonymy and homonymy).
To make the point clear let me take an example. It is known that "passive
meaning" can be expressed in various ways, among which are middle/passive
morphemes (see Greek or Turkish), reflexive clitics (see se/si in Romance
languages) or copula verbs followed by past participles. All these constructions
have in common the absorption of the external th-role (the absorption of objective
Case is much less clear), and we may try to derive this characteristic from the
properties of the syntactic configurations that display it. Jaeggli's (1986a) proposal
(taken up recently by Baker, Johnson and Roberts (1989)) is that the the passive
suffix -en absorbs the external th-role (and also Objective case in certain
languages). The problem with this analysis is the existence of past participles which
do not trigger the passive phenomenon (see the present perfect/ past perfect
paradigms). One must then stipulate the existence of two types of homonymous
past participles, "passive" and "non passive" (cf. Baker, Johnson and Roberts
(1989)).4
This kind of analysis can of course apply to passive reflexives, and this has
indeed been proposed by Belletti (1982): their passive meaning would also be due
to a "passivizing" morpheme, the clitic se, which would be characterized in exactly
the same way as the past participle morpheme. Put together, Jaeggli's and Belletti's
hypotheses lead to the curious conclusion that the "passive" past participle
morpheme and "passive" se are synonyms 5 , and that the "passive" se and the
"reflexive" se are homonyms.
By avoiding the use of abstract features we may provide an analysis within
which semantics is interpretive, that is, it can be read off structures which have
been generated by a truly autonomous syntax, one which makes no reference to the
"passive" meaning of a given element. The syntactic representation should take into
account the distinct overt properties of the constructions under discussion: the verb
BE (we use capitals to refer to English be, but also to French etre, Romanian a fi,
etc.) for copula passives, and se for "reflexive" passives. None of these elements
should be stipulated as being a passivizer. We should also try to understand why se
(see also Greek morphological passives) is compatible with both the passive and
die reflexive meaning, unlike copula passives.
Cinque (1988) has observed an important difference concerning the distribution
of Italian si in [-finite] clauses, between on the one hand (in)transitives and on the
other hand unaccusatives, passives and copula constructions. This data suggests
that what was currently supposed to be just one item, namely the Italian
"impersonal" ("nominative", "subject") si, must in fact be analyzed as two items,
^There is in fact a difference between the two -en morphemes, namely the fact that only "passive"
-en necessarily takes AGR features, thus qualifying as an element (cf. Jaeggli (1986a: 592, fn
6)). However, it is not clear at all that this difference is due to intrinsic features, or rather to the
fact that in passives, as opposed to present perfect, -en appears in a copula construction. Note also
that in French and Italian the non-passive past participle morpheme takes AGR features in a
number of cases.
5
Note that according to J. C. Milner (class lectures) complete synonymy is probably non existent
in general; morphological synonymy is even more questionable than lexical synonymy.
Introduction
XVII
and Cinque proposes to distinguish them by the feature [+argument] versus [argument]. This analysis is difficult to accept, in so far as it postulates perfect
homonymy: two elements that present exactly the same overt properties are
supposed to be characterized by distinct "content" properties (i.e., by distinct
features). It is in fact possible to show that the distinction between +arg and -arg si
is an artefact. The important empirical data that this distinction is supposed to
capture can be treated in terms of the difference between the anaphoric "object" si
and the "subject" (or "nominative") si (see Chapter 5 ). The latter distinction is not a
case of homonymy, because Case constitutes a formal property, which can be used
to distinguish between linguistic elements: Nominative si and Accusative si are two
formally distinct entities, and not two homonyms. The question of why such a
difference should exist for phonologically identical elements is another problem
(diachronic reanalysis may be invoked, see Naro (1976)).
Let us now consider overt features. Notions such as "clitic" or "affix" are
morphophonological features that characterize certain lexical items as opposed to
others. Features of this kind provide important descriptive information, which may
help us in characterizing crosslinguistic variation. It is obvious that languages differ
from each other with respect to the presence of clitic elements: Romance languages,
as opposed to English, present pronominal clitics; Slavonic languages, as opposed
to Romance languages (with the exception of Romanian which in this respect
behaves as a Slavonic language) present verbal auxiliaries which have clitic status.
The presence/absence of (pronominal and/or verbal) clitics is a real crosslinguistic
difference, but a quite "superficial" one, which probably does not deserve the status
of "parametrical" option: if we have a good definition of clitics we may easily
classify languages with respect to the presence of these elements, but this
classification (which can be established independently of our theory of principles)
does not really help us understand crosslinguistic variation. We must therefore
pursue our investigation and try to see whether the existence of clitics can be
shown to follow from other parametrical choices. It seems that the distribution of
clitics is related to functional categories in general, and to Infi (or Tense) in
particular. It is thus, in principle, possible to account for the presence or absence of
clitics on the basis of properties of Tense, which are closely related to the structure
of IP constituents. It would then be interesting to derive the existence of clitic
elements as a consequence of a particular choice concerning IP structure (S-V-O,
S-O-V or V-S-O). This is the line of investigation that I will try to pursue in
Chapter 1: if I am correct, the fact that Romanian verbal auxiliaries are clitics is
related to the fact that this language is V-initial. More precisely, NP subjects are
generated as sisters to VP and V raises to Infi, bypassing the intervening subject;
the subject stays in its base-position - compare S-V-0 languages, which according
to Sportiche (1988) would be characterized similarly, but would furthermore
involve obligatory subject-raising to (Spec,I').
The recent research concerning IP constituents is characterized by the
proliferation of syntactic positions: not only is each inflectional morpheme
generated in a distinct syntactic position (hence syntactic nodes such as Tense,
Agreement, Aspect, Negation, etc.), but moreover each of these morphemes is
considered to be the head of a functional projection; hence AGRP, NegP, AspP,
etc., each of which takes its own Spec, or subject position. The stand that I have
taken in this book is more conservative with respect to two assumptions: (a) I take
AGR to be a functional head of "nominal" type, which could only project a DP-like
XVIII The syntax of Romanian
constituent; I therefore assume no AGRP, either under or above TenseP (see

Pollock (1989) and Belletti (1990), respectively); (b) I do not assume a Spec
position for every functional projection. What we obtain is a CP which dominates
NegP, which in turn dominates IP (or rather TenseP). I have also proposed a
process of reanalysis by which functional heads merge with each other giving rise
to incorporated heads of the form (Comp)-(Neg)-(cl)-Tense-V-AGR, where the
bracketed elements are not obligatory. There is only one Spec position for this
reanalyzed head, which hosts the NP subject in S-V-0 languages; in V-initial
languages the same Spec position is an A' position, which can host any kind of
constituent. Correlatively, I take the VP-internal subject position to be an A
position in V-initial languages, but a mere th-position (which does not qualify as
either A- or A'-) in S-V-O languages. Arguments in favour of these options can be
found in Chapters 1 and 2.
Must we assume that languages present the same functional categories or are we
allowed to postulate distinct functional categories across languages? Morphological
data seems to plead in favour of free variation: there are "aspectual" languages for
which it seems necessary to postulate an "Aspect" functional category, which
probably does not exist in Romance languages. The obvious character of this
remark may be misleading, and the languages that present "Aspect" should be
carefully studied before we can make a decision concerning the syntactic relevance
of certain morphological inflections. Even if it may prove to be too strong, it seems
that from a purely heuristic point of view, it is preferable to try to maintain the more
constrained hypothesis, according to which languages present the same functional
categories. In Chapters 1, 2 and 3 it will be shown that this hypothesis leads to a
more explanatory account of certain Romanian data than other accounts which rely
on idiosyncratic functional categories (see Rivero (1988a, to appear), who assumes
that Balkan languages present, besides Tense/AGR, an extra Infi node, which
would host subjunctive and infinitival particles, as well as certain auxiliaries). I
believe that by letting idiosyncracies get into our analyses we diminish our hope of
approaching a real comprehension of linguistic phenomena.
The Lexicons of various languages do vary widely in obvious respects: not only
do we not find exactly the same lexical items from one language to another, but the
various classes of verbs appear to overlap: a transitive verb in Li appears to have
an intransitive counterpart in L2, and the same happens with intransitivesunaccusatives, etc.; verbs do not subcategorize the same type of PP in various
languages, etc. The existence of these differences in the membership of the classes
of verbs does not mean that the classes themselves are defined in a different way: I
do believe that the notions of (in)transitivity should be defined in the same way in
English, German and French, even if the classes of transitives and intransitives are
not completely identical in these languages. It is thus possible to say that, in so far
as certain lexical classes can be defined across languages, there is no reason to
believe that they are open to parametrical variation. What is open to variation is the
choice that is made for a particular verb in a particular language, as to its belonging
to one class or another. These remarks cast doubt on the idea that in certain
languages (German, Norwegian, as opposed to Italian or English) intransitives
would be able to assign objective Case (see Jaeggli (1986a)). My point is not that
intransitives should not be allowed to assign objective Case (I believe in fact that
they do), but only that we should not allow intransitives to be defined in different
ways for different languages.
Introduction
XIX
The idea that intransitives may vary crosslinguistically with respect to their
Case-assigning properties has been suggested in order to account for a well-known
fact: intransitive verbs are allowed to passivize in some languages (see German,
Norwegian, Arabic, etc. and marginally French), as opposed to others (Romance
languages other than French, English, etc.) which do not. The problem is that by
parametrizing (in)transitivity we get rid of the puzzle rather than solve iL The same
remark applies to the other possible alternative, the parametrization of the Case
absorption properties of passive morphemes (see Baker (1988); Roberts (1985,
1987), among others). In Chapter 5, I argue instead that the passivizability of
intransitives need not be parametrized; the above mentioned crosslinguistic
differences are due to the existence of various types of impersonal constructions
(see il impersonals in French, inverted subjects in "pro-drop" Romance languages,
and es/impersonal "pro"constructions in German).
The proposed analysis of passive intransitives opens the way towards a better
understanding of the Romance construction that involves intransitive verbs used
with the reflexive pronoun se/si. According to a generalization unanimously
maintained by both traditional and generative scholars (see in particular Belletti
(1982)), "pro-drop" Romance languages present a subject/Nominative se/si, which
shows up, among other constructions, in se Vjntransitive sequences. In Chapter 5,
it is shown that this generalization should be revised. Although it is a "pro-drop"
language, Romanian does not have at its disposal "Nominative" se. The matter is
complicated by the fact that Romanian does present the construction se
întransitive (se doarme 'se sleeps': "one sleeps", "they sleep"), which will be
analyzed as relying on middle/passivizing se.
The foregoing discussion anticipates arguments that show that certain proposed
parameters concerning the Lexicon are not needed; other parameters capture real
differences between linguistic elements (see the clitic status of pronouns and
auxiliaries in certain languages) but these differences can be shown to derive from
structural properties of syntactic constituents. Certain crosslinguistic differences
concerning the distribution of comparable elements in various languages should not
be interpreted as the consequence of some abstract difference between the elements
themselves, but rather as the consequence of the different structural properties of
their syntactic environment: V-initial IP constituents, various types of impersonals,
or the existence versus the absence of "null operator" configurations (Romanian
does not present i/iai-relatives, clefts, Topicalizations, etc). In Chapter 6, I argue
that the lack of "null operator" configurations explains why Romanian presents
systematic contrasts between "strong" and "weak" (in the sense of Milsark) whquantifiers. I believe that this result is correct, but it is clearly not the end of the
story: a "parameter" that distinguishes between languages with and without "null
operators" has no real theoretical status; it is at most a descriptive generalization
made possible by our theory. We must now try to understand better the notion of
"null operator" itself (or rather the type of licensing mechanism of those empty
"variables" which are not bound by lexical quantifiers). We must then try to
establish a relation between this type of licensing mechanism and other
crosslinguistic differences. A possible line of inquiry would be to try to establish a
relation between word-order typology (SVO, SOV, VSO, etc.), "clitic doubling
typology" (Romanian and Spanish, as opposed to French and Italian, allow
(in)direct objects to be doubled by a clitic pronoun) and the typology of whmovement. The "null operator option" is thus clearly not a "parameter" if by that
XX The syntax of Romanian
notion we mean a primitive difference between languages. The term "parameter" is,
however, currently used in a less strict way, to designate one difference that
accounts for a cluster of differences between languages. Such a parametrical
variation may then be shown to follow as a consequence of another, more abstract
parametrical option.
By restricting the parametrization of the Lexicon we reduce quite drastically the
number of possible parameters, because the possible variations in syntactic
structures are much fewer than the possible variations in the Lexicon. This book
eliminates a number of unjustified parameters concerning the Lexicon, and does not
propose any real "parameter", in the sense of primitive difference between
languages. My main aim has been to establish correlations between clusters of covarying crosslinguistic differences; I hope that further investigation will lead us
from these "intermediate/mid-way parameters" to the discovery of some primitive
differences between languages.
This constrained view of parametrization has led me to propose certain
theoretical refinements, which bear on the projection principle, on the theory of whmovement and quantification, and on the identification of empty categories and
pronouns. I shall very briefly summarize the main conclusions and refer the reader
to the various relevant chapters.
If we do not want to introduce unjustified parameters concerning either
intransitivity or passivization, the possibility of passive intransitives must no longer
be thought of as a "marked" characteristic of certain languages, but as a virtual
possibility of any language. In Chapter 5 evidence will be provided in favour of the
idea that the representation of passive intransitives necessarily involves the
presence of an empty category in the object position (which, depending on the type
of impersonal construction, may form a th-chain by itself, or belong to the same
chain as the subject position). Active intransitives, on the other hand, may appear
with overt cognate objects, but no empty category should be postulated when such
objects do not show up. This means that the projection principle is not alone
responsible for the positions projected in the syntax: syntactic configurations,
passives in particular, may force the instantiation of certain positions; as a result,
"implicit/prototypical" or empty "cognate" objects may surface in the syntax in
passive configurations, but in active structures they are saturated in the Lexicon.
The analysis of Romanian wA-structures proposed in Chapters 6 and 7 leads to
certain revisions of the GB theory of quantification, which appear to be
independently motivated by the behaviour of dislocated quantified expressions and
of quantified expressions in situ. My proposals concern the formal mechanisms on
which quantification structures rely. How do we define a quantified NP as opposed
to a "referential" NP? Are quantificational relations established between quantified
NPs and variables, or between nominal determiners and variables? In addition, I
propose new accounts for certain well-known phenomena, such as the systematic
interpretive contrasts between the specific versus nonspecific readings of
indefinites and other quantified NPs, and "weak" islands. My results depart from
the current view of quantification initiated by May (1977), but converge with work
by Cinque (1990), Pesetsky (1987), Williams (1986) and others.
1. Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents
Romanian auxiliary constructions show properties that set this language apart
among the other Romance languages. The main aim of this chapter is to establish
the correct underlying configuration of Romanian auxiliary constructions. I will
then try to show that a correlation exists between types of auxiliaries and types of
IP constituents. If this correlation is correct, the type of auxiliaries found in
Romanian constitutes an indirect argument in favour of the idea that Romanian IP
constituents are VC+ty-initial.1
Let us start by defining the notion of auxiliary:
(A)
a. Auxiliaries are verbs which present a defective lexical structure,

characterized by the absence of th-structure (they do not th-mark).
b. Auxiliaries select a VP complement.
The statement in (A)a defines the thematic properties of those auxiliaries that are
sometimes referred to as "functional"/"weak" (see Lema and Rivero (1989, 1990)),
"aspectual" (Chomsky (1986)b), or "temporal" (Bennis and Hoekstra (1988),
Gueron and Hoekstra (1988)). The term "auxiliary" will be used here in this
restrictive sense. The statement in (A)b is the structural characteristic of auxiliaries.
It is however well-known that this structural property can be found in other
elements, such as English modals and Infi, which differ from auxiliaries with
respect to (A)a: Infi is assumed to th-mark VP (see Chomsky (1986)b), and
English modals L-mark VP.
The structural definition of auxiliaries (and modals) goes back to Chomsky (1955):
auxiliary verbs are not sisters to V itself, but rather sisters to VP; 2 in other words,
auxiliaries are not inside, but outside the minimal VP constituent which dominates
the lexical verb. It is currently assumed (see in particular Akmajian, Steele and
Wasow (1979), Gueron and Hoekstra (1988) and Rouveret (1987)), that the
definition in (A)b is an empirical generalization that subsumes (besides English
modals) aspectual auxiliaries in Germanic and Romance languages (see have, the
French etre and avoir, etc.); it does not cover the passive auxiliary, nor English
causatives.
It will be shown (Section 1.1.) that Romanian auxiliaries cannot be analyzed in
terms of (A)b; they appear to be subsumed by the definition in (B):
(B)
Romanian auxiliaries do not select a VP complement; they select a CP

complement headed by (V+)Infl.
The characteristic stated in (B) should not be understood as meaning that Romanian
auxiliaries are comparable to the French aller 'go' in the colloquial future
'(Spec, IP) is an A'-position, which can be occupied by subjects and non-subjects alike; (Spec,
VP) is the -position of subjects.
2
For other hypotheses concerning auxiliaries see Ross (1969), Emonds (1978) and Akmajian,
Steele and Wasow (1979).
2 The syntax of Romanian
construction, which from the structural point of view behaves as a raising verb.
Romanian auxiliaries will be shown to be different from raising verbs. Romanian
raising structures involve two IP constituents and two subject positions, whereas
the auxiliaries defined in (B) can be shown to appear in configurations in which
only one Infi element is active and only one subject position is projected (note that
by these properties the Romanian auxiliaries defined in (B) resemble the structural
auxiliaries defined in (A)b).
Romanian presents a modal verb, a putea 'may, can', which shows the structural
properties of Romance and Germanic auxiliaries (see (A)b):
(C)
Romanian modals may select a VP complement.
An understanding of why (B) and (C) should hold relies on the "Tense filter", a
licensing requirement to which both auxiliaries and lexical verbs are subject.
1 . 1 . Auxiliary constructions
The auxiliaries to be discussed in this chapter are those found in the present perfect
("perfectul compus"), future and conditional paradigms. The passive auxiliary be
will not be considered, because it shows the morpho-syntactic behaviour of lexical
verbs.
Romanian and English have in common the use of auxiliary verbs that encode
grammatical information such as "future" and "conditional"; as in English, these
auxiliaries are followed by a bare infinitive, i.e., an infinitive devoid of the particle
a. For ease of reference I have glossed a as to, although the two particles do not
represent the same syntactic category (see Chapter 3).
(1)
a. Copi vor (*a) pleca la mare.

The children will (*to) go to the seaside,
b. Copiii ar (*a) pleca la mare.
The children would (*to) go to the seaside.
It is not obvious that the Romanian examples in (1) should be analyzed on a par
with their English glosses. We might as well think that (l)a-b are comparable to the
French "futur proche", which is currently attributed a biclausal structure:
(2)
Je vais [ip PRO lui dcrire]

I go [ip PRO himDat (to) write]
am going to write him'
The main argument in favour of a biclausal structure comes from the distribution of
clitics. Assuming that clitics attach necessarily to an Infi node (see Chapter 2), the
position of the clitic in (2) indicates that the lower verb is governed by an Infi node;
hence an embedded IP constituent must be assumed in (2). This means that the verb
aller has the structural properties of raising verbs, not those of auxiliaries (see the
definition in (A)b); thus, to classify aller as an auxiliary is to take into account its
semantics (future meaning) rather than its structural properties (for further
Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents 3
discussion of the difference between structural auxiliaries and raising verbs see
Section 1.2.).
Returning to the Romanian examples in (1), clitics necessarily attach to the
higher verb,3 and this may be taken to indicate that there is no lower Infi node:
(3)
a. Mana il va invita
sigur.
Mary him will invite for sure,

b. *Maria va il invita
sigur
Furthermore, Romanian future and conditional auxiliaries are not used as lexical
verbs, as opposed to aller in French. Both the Romanian future auxiliary voi/vei/..
and the verb a vrea 'want' stem from the same etymon, uolo. However, in modern
Romanian the paradigm of voi is distinct from the paradigm of a vrea 'to want' (see
(4) and (5)); (4) is also distinct from the paradigm of the lexical verb a voi 'to want'
(see (5)b), felt as an archaic variant of a vrea::4
(4)
eu voi / tu vei/el
va/noi
vom / voi vep /ei
vorpleca
[future]
I will-1st p/ you will-2nd / he will-3rd leave ..

(5)
a. eu vreau /tu vrei/el vrea /noi vrem / voi vrefi...

I want-1st / you want-2nd p/ he want...
b. eu voiesc/tu voiefti/.../
noi voim / voi voip
[a vrea 'to want']

[a voi
'to want!
The morphological differences between the paradigms (4) and (5) indicate clearly
that in modern Romanian the future auxiliary is an element whose use is restricted
to the future periphrastic construction. Likewise, the paradigm in (6)a, used in the
"perfectul compus" is distinct from the conjugated forms of a avea 'to have' (see
(6)b), although they are historically related:
(6)
a. am/ai/a/am/ap/au plecat
(I) have/ (you) have/ (he) has ... left
b. am/ai/are/avem/avepi/au
["perfectul compus"]
[a avea'to have']
Compare the French avoir or English have, which function both as auxiliaries and
as lexical verbs.
The case of the Romanian conditional is even clearer. The inflected auxiliary
element is a/ai/ar..., whose distribution is restricted to the conditional forms. It no
longer bears any relation to a avea 'to have', to which it is historically related:
(7)
eu a / tu ai / el ar /noi am / voi ap/ei ar pleca
[conditional]
I would-1st / you would-2nd p/ he would-3rd leave ..

Thus, the Romanian future and conditional periphrastic constructions seem difficult
to analyze as biclausal structures on a par with (2). This might lead us to analyze
The feminine clitic is a notable exception to this generalization, which will lead us to abandon
the hypothesis envisaged here (see Section 1.2.3. below).
4
The etymology of voi is not completely clear; it may go back to Latin uolo, or be of Slavonic
origin.
them as monoclausal constructions involving an auxiliary verb of the type defined

in (A)b, repeated in (8):
(8)
Auxiliaries select a VP complement.
The verbs that fall under (8) are not all of the same type. English modals present
certain well-known formal characteristics that distinguish them from lexical verbs:
(a) their position with respect to the negation particle and adverbs; (b) participation
in subject-Aux inversion; (c) the lack of Agreement inflections and (d) the lack of
non-finite forms. This irregular morpho-syntactic behaviour has been captured by
assuming that English modals are not generated under V, but under a specific
position, whose label has changed from Aux (Chomsky (1957, 1965)) to Infi
(Chomsky (1981)):
(9)
a.
I'.
I
Aux
VP^
V
NP 0
The label Aux in (9) should not be mistaken for the node Aux in Chomsky (1965),
which has survived as Infi in the current theory (Chomsky (1981)). Infi is a more
inclusive category than the former Aux; the two notions are nevertheless essentially
comparable since they both have the status of a syntactic category. The Aux in (9)
is simply a label for a given lexical class, whose elements are defined in (A).
Unlike English modals, aspectual auxiliaries (see English have, French avoir and
ere, etc.) show the morpho-syntactic behaviour characteristic of lexical verbs5 and
are therefore assumed to be generated outside Infi, under a V node (for ease of
reference the VPs headed by an auxiliary will be notated AuxP; the reader should
recall that this label does not mean that we assume the existence of a distinct
syntactic category) that takes a VP complement: at S-structure French auxiliary
verbs move to Infi (as French verbs normally do, see Emonds (1978) and Pollock
(1989)):
(9)
b.
I'
NP,
What is the correct underlying structure of Romanian auxiliary structures? Are they
of the type given in either (9)a or (9)b?
5
Note however that non-finite auxiliaries behave differently from non-finite lexical verbs, cf.
Pollock (1989).
Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents
1. 1. 1. Auxiliaries
and Tense
features
Consider (10)-(11) and compare the corresponding English glosses with the French
and English paradigms in (12)-(13):
(10)
euam/tu
ai/el
a/noi
am/voi
ap/ei
au
mincat
(I) have-lst / you have-2nd / ...eaten

(11)
mincasem
/ mlncasefi
/ mincase
/ mincasem
/ mincasefi
mincaser
I / you / ....had eaten

(12)
a. tu as mang6
/tu
es
parti
b. you have eaten / gone

(13)
a. j'avais
mang6/j'6tais
parti
b. I had eaten/1 had left

In English and French (and in fact in Romance and Germanic languages in general)
the present perfect and past perfect are built with the perfect auxiliary
(have/avoir/etre),
which takes Present and Past Tense/Imparfait morphological
inflections respectively. This strategy is not available in Romanian, which uses
instead a bound morpheme for the Past Perfect. The paradigms of Present Perfect
and Past Perfect thus appear to be completely distinct from each other in Romanian,
as opposed to French and English, where the Past Perfect and the Present Perfect
paradigms use the same auxiliary (with different Tense inflections). The
generalization underlying this data could be that Romanian auxiliaries are unable to
carry Tense features. This characteristic could be captured by assuming that
Romanian auxiliaries are generated under I(nfl), as are English modals (see (9)a):
since the auxiliary fills the Infi position, and assuming that syntactic positions
cannot be doubly filled, Tense inflections cannot be generated.6
Now compare the paradigm in (10) and those in (14):
(14)
a. eu voi
fi
mincat
I will BE eaten
will have eaten'
b . eu a fi
mincat
I would BE eaten
would have eaten'
These examples are not built with the perfect auxiliary am/ai/a..., used in (10), but
with the invariable auxiliary fi 'be',7 which appears with any kind of verb
^This means that auxiliaries can take Tense inflections only if they are generated outside the Infi
position, as in (9)b. The English modals should and would constitute a potential problem for
this generalization: they bear the Tense inflection -ed, but their distributional properties indicate
that they are generated under Infi. To solve this problem one may assume that should and would
are listed in the Lexicon as such and directly inserted under Infi (rather than deriving from the
raising of shall/will to an Infi position dominating -ed).
^Besides (14)a-b, fi is also used in perfect infinitivals and subjunctives:
(i)
a fi mincat
(unaccusatives, transitives or intransitives). This difference between (10) and (14)

may indicate that am/ai/ar... cannot be embedded under another auxiliary. The
incapacity of am/ai... to be embedded under future or conditional auxiliaries could
follow from the hypothesis suggested above, according to which the perfect
auxiliary am/ai/a..., as well as the future and conditional auxiliaries are necessarily
generated under Infi: assuming that syntactic positions cannot be doubly filled,
am/ai/a... cannot co-occur with the future and conditional auxiliaries. One would
then have to assume that fi differs from the other auxiliaries in that it is generated
outside Infi.
To summarize, the structures in (9)a-b represent two abstract possibilities from
which languages may choose: French (and probably Romance languages other than
Romanian) represents the type in (9)b, Romanian is apparently characterized
exclusively by (9)a, and English has at its disposal both of them ((9)a for modals
and (9)b for the perfect auxiliary). At this stage of our investigation, the idea that
Romanian auxiliaries (with the exception of invariable fi) are necessarily generated
under Infi seems to account for the data, but it is a mere stipulation; for a real
understanding of the Romanian data we must explain why this should be so, and
why Romanian auxiliaries behave the way they do. We would like to know whether
the particular characteristics of Romanian auxiliaries correlate with other differences
that distinguish Romanian from other languages. The investigation of this will lead
us to abandon the idea that (9)a is the underlying representation of Romanian
auxiliary structures. It will then be shown that Romanian auxiliaries are not of the
type described in (A)b.
1. 1. 2. Auxiliaries and generalized V-raising
Some of the current tests for V-raising to Infi 8 are unavailable in Romanian.
Compare (15)a-b and (15)c:
(15)
a.
Nuplecmiine.
(I) not leave tomorrow
b. *Plec nu miine.
c. Je ne pars pas demain.
I NE leave NOT tomorrow
In (15)c pas necessarily shows up after the verb; assuming that pas is generated in
front of VP, its S-structure position indicates that the verb has raised over pas
(compare French infinitives, in which the verb does not raise: ne pas partir/*ne
partirpas 'not pas leave'). The data in (15)a-b does not show that V-raising does not
apply in Romanian; they simply indicate that the negative particle nu is basegenerated in front of Infi, and not between Infi and VP. 9 Consider also the
'to have eaten'
a$ vrea sS fi mincat
would like s have eaten.'
8
See Emonds (1978), Pollock (1989), and the references cited there.
9
S e e Zanuttini (1989) who gives evidence in favour of the existence of two distinct types of
negative elements: (a) nu in Romanian, ne in French, or non in Italian would be functional heads
that take IP complements; (b) pas is an adverbial element, generated in front of VP.
(ii)
sentences in which an auxiliary, that we provisionally assume to stand under Infi, is

followed by a verb, as in (16)a-b. Compare this with French, where pas comes
between the auxiliary verb, which has raised to Infi, and the VP:
(16) a. N-ar vrea s te supere.
he not-would want to bother you
b. *Ar nu vrea s te supere.
c. il n'a pas voulu/ *il ne pas a voulu
Let us then add the position of the Neg head to the abstract structure given in (9)a:
(17)
NegP
Neg
IP
At this point let me specify the analysis of V-to-I movement to be adopted below.
Following Roberts (1985) and Rizzi and Roberts (1989), I assume that the landing
site of V-to-I movement is created at D-structure, as a function of the lexical
properties of Infi: Infi morphologically subcategorizes for a V position (for
morphological subcategorization see Lieber (1980)), to which the verb raises.
Under this analysis V-to-I movement satisfies a strong version of the structurepreservation constraint, one which rules out the adjunction option: this means that
V cannot adjoin to the element dominated by Infi. If that element does not present a
morphologically subcategorized position, V cannot raise to Infi, but stays under
VP. I will assume that Head to Head movement in general is structure-preserving: a
head can substitute either in an empty head position (the standard case is I-to-C
movement, but one can imagine that V-to-I movement can also apply in case Infi is
empty) or in a morphologically subcategorized position (V-to-I movement). The
adjunction possibility is ruled out for Head to Head movement.10
In line with current research, I assume that functional categories are heads that
project functional projections (see Pollock (1989)); however, I do not think that all
functional projections have subject positions. Even if we do not have at our
disposal an explicit theory of subject positions, I would like to preserve the natural
idea that sentential constituents have just one subject position. In order to achieve
this, we would have to investigate the relation between Tense and the subject NP,
and the relations between the various functional categories: Tense, AGR and Neg
appear to cluster together, which may be taken to indicate that they are subject to an
incorporation process (see also Chapters 2 and 3) giving rise to an X constituent
labelled Infi: [i n fl Neg-V+Tense+AGR] ; correlatively, the projection of this
element would be IP, 11 and the subject would occupy the (Spec, IP) position.
lORizzi and Roberts (1989) note that cliticization may constitute an exception to this strong
version of structure preservation (see Chapter 2).
l^This analysis of functional projections could be theoretically supported by Grimshaw's (1991)
theory of "extended projection", under which NegP, TenseP, AgrP are all extended projections of
the verb.
A short note is in order here, concerning the position and status of AGR
inflections, which in Romanian can combine both with auxiliaries and with Tense
inflections (bound morphemes): in (4), (6) and (7) the auxiliary is inflected for
AGR and the lexical verb takes on the bare infinitive or the past participle form; in
(18) the lexical verb carries both Tense and AGR inflections:
(18) eu plec-a-m/tu plec-a-i/el plec-a- / noi plec-a-m / voi plec-a-p
I leave-imperf-lst / you leave-imperf-2nd / he leave-imperf-3rd ...
If we assume that each inflectional morpheme is generated in a distinct syntactic
position, we may add an AGR position to the structure in (17). However,
Romanian presents no clear evidence in favour of the idea that AGRP and TenseP
are two distinct maximal projections (see Pollock (1989)). We may even question
the idea that AGR is a syntactic head that projects a functional projection; AGR
may instead be viewed as an affix that is nominal in nature, on a par with
pronominal clitics. I take AGR to adjoin to Tense. As discussed above, adjunction
is not allowed for Head to Head movement, but base-generated adjunction is
allowed. Thus we obtain a structure in which AGR is higher than Infi (see also
Belletti (1990), as opposed to Pollock (1989)), which accounts for the surface word
order of AGR and Tense morphemes. (17) thus becomes (19), in which the Tense
node dominates either auxiliary verbs or Tense inflections.12 The latter present a
morphologically subcategorized position to which the verb raises:
AGR
Tense
Aux
^past/present J
Consider now the distribution of adverbs and floating quantifiers:
(20) a. (i)
Elevii mei vd des filme bune.

my students see often good films
(ii) Elevii mei citesc top poezie de Verlaine.
my students read all a poem by Verlaine,
b. (i) Am vzut adesea filme bune.
[I] have seen frequently good movies.
(ii) Voi vedea adesea filme bune.
[I] shall see frequently good movies.
(iii) A$ merge des la cinema.
[I] would (*frequently) go (frequently) to the cinema.
12
Since Chomsky (1955) it has been assumed that the same position may host both bound and
free morphemes (the English Infi node may dominate modals, auxiliary do, -edand -s).
(iv) Elevii ti au citit top un poem de Verlaine.

your students have read all a poem by Verlaine,
() Elevii ti vor citi to(i un poem de Verlaine.
your students will read all a poem by Verlaine
(vi) Elevii ti ar citi top un poem de Verlaine.
your students would read all a poem by Verlaine
c. (i) *elevii mei vor adesea vedea filme bune
my students will often see good films
(ii) *elevii mei au top sens poezie
my students will all write a poem
On the assumption that certain adverbs and floating quantifiers are generated in
front of VP, the word order in (20)a indicates that V-to-Infl movement applies in
Romanian. 1 3 This reasoning is comparable to the one proposed for French
examples (see Emonds (1978)) like those in (21)a-b:
(21)
a. *les Sieves tous 6criront

b. les Sieves Scriront tous
c. les Sieves ont tous ecrit un poeme
Example (21)a is ungrammatical because V-raising did not apply; compare (21)b,
obtained by V-raising.
Let us now examine the contrast between (20)c and (21)c. In the French example
the auxiliary has raised by V-to-I movement; the past participle itself is left in situ,
under VP: 14
(21') c. les eleves
Uux-TenseOnt]
A u
x P t A u x [VP
tous [Vp ecrit un poeme]]]
To account for the word order in (20)b we must assume that in Romanian the
lexical verb itself is subject to V-raising. Example (20)c is ungrammatical because
V-raising did not apply. The contrast between (20)b and (20)c thus indicates that in
Romanian V-raising necessarily applies to lexical verbs, even in the presence of
auxiliary verbs:
(20') b. Oelevii mei [Tensevor] [yscriei] [yp toji [yp t; poezie]]
As indicated by the diamond, the structure in (20')b is illegitimate, because V
movement violates the structure preservation constraint: there is no available head
position to which the verb may raise. The fact that (20')b is illicit accounts for a
reasonably well-established generalization, according to which the presence of an
13
The same conclusion concerning V-raising can be reached if we assume that floating quantifiers
are generated under the (Spec, NP) node of NP subjects, which would be themselves generated
inside or adjoined to VP (see Sportiche (1988)).
14
This is probably an oversimplification (see Appendix); we may assume that the past participle
morpheme is generated under an Infi node which governs VP (see Kayne (1987); Baker, Johnson
and Roberts (1989)).
auxiliary (independently of whether it is generated under Infi or outside Infi) forces

the lexical verb to stay under VP (see English modals and have, French avoir/etre
or German auxiliaries). Examples (20) show that Romanian falls outside the scope
of this generalization (the lexical verb obligatorily raises in auxiliary structures).
The correct underlying configuration remains to be discovered.
One possibility would be to assume that Romanian auxiliaries are some kind of
affixes, which subcategorize morphologically for a V position to which the lexical
verb raises. This would solve the problem of the landing site for V raising, but
another major difficulty presents itself in connection with the so-called "inverted
conjugations", characterized by an inverted order between the lexical verb and the
auxiliary (compare (22) and (23); for a detailed analysis of these constructions see
Section 1.4.):
(22)
am plecat nou din Vaslui..

[we] have left nine from Vaslui
(23) plecat-am nou din Vaslui
left-[we] have nine from Vaslui
'We were nine when we left Vaslui'.
The possibility to reverse morpheme order cannot be reconciled with the idea that
auxiliaries are affixes. Let us then assume that Romanian auxiliaries are free
morphemes, and as such do not present any morphologically subcategorized
position that could host the raised verb.
The description of V raising in Romanian auxiliary constructions must take into
account a very small class of monosyllabic adverbs (mai 'again', i 'already', cam
'a little', prea 'too much' and tot 'still'), which are characterized by an extremely
constrained distribution; they necessarily precede lexical verbs (see (24)a vs (24)c),
but follow auxiliaries (see (24)b vs (24)d): 15
(24)
a. Nu mai cred c e posibil.

(I) not longer believe that (it) is possible
b. Alt dat nu va mai spune prostii.
next time (he) not will again say nonsense
Ion a i sens profesorului.
John has already written the teacher
c. *Nu cred mai ce posibil.
(I) not believe longer that (it) is possible
*Alt dat nu va spune mai prostii.
next time (he) not will say again nonsense
d. *De anul trecut mai a venit
since last year again not-has come
* Jon $i a sens profesorului.
John already has written the teacher
l^The adverb cannot follow the perfect auxiliary fr.

(i)
Ion ar mai ft stat, dar nu 1-a lsat Maria.
John would still PERF stayed, but not him-has let Maria
'John would have stayed longer, but Mary didn't let him.'
(ii)
* Ion ar fi mai stat, dar nu 1-a lsat Maria.
This data, which is not relevant here, will be discussed in Section 1.6.
The ungrammatically of (24)c indicates that the verb cannot raise over
monosyllabic adverbs. This does not necessarily mean that V-raising does not
apply. We could assume that the adverb is generated adjoined to the position to
which the verb raises (see below). Or alternatively we may suppose that the adverb
is base-generated in an adjunction position to the verb (see Rivero (1988a; to
appear)); the constituent Adv-V, where Adv belongs to the class of monosyllabic
adverbs enumerated above, would be subject to all the rules that affect verbs, V
raising out of VP in particular. Example (24)b could thus be represented as either
(24')b or (24")b:
(24') b. aIt dat nu [aux^J [mai [yp spunej [yp ti prostii]
tZ
another time not [he] will again talk nonsense

(24") b. altdatnu \\nxval [yp mai spunej [yptj prostii]
t
These two structures have in common the idea that the monosyllabic adverbs that
show up in (24) are clitic elements (on the definition of clitics see Chapter 2). This
hypothesis is strongly supported by their distribution relative to the distribution of
pronominal clitics:
(25) a. Nu-1 mai intreb nimic.
(I) not-him longer ask about anything
b. II mai /i examinez din cind in cind.
(I) him still/ also examine from time to time
c. *Mai/i il examinez din cind in cind 16
(I) still/ also him examine from time to time
Note also the example in (26), where phonological endocliticization of mai can be
observed:
(26) nemaiplecind Ion de acas
not-again-leaving John from home
To summarize, the rule of V-raising appears obligatorily to apply in Romanian,
even in the presence of an auxiliary. This fact cannot be captured under the
hypothesis that Romanian auxiliary structures are of type (A)b: the only
representation that could be proposed was that in (20')b, which was shown to be
^Sequences in which clitic adverbs precede pronominal clitics do appear in certain non-standard
idio-/dialects: ?? mai il intreb j/ eu ceva '[I] still him ask me too something'; they seem to
improve with the negation: ? nu mai il intreb nimic. These examples might be obtained at
surface structure, by some morpheme reordering. The improvement observed in negative contexts
may be due to the fact that nu mai is reinterpreted as numai 'only', which is not a clitic adverb,
and as such occupies a different position.
illicit.17 In the next section we will investigate another hypothesis to be eliminated,

before proceeding to a positive analysis of Romanian auxiliary structures, which
will lead us to abandon the idea that Romanian auxiliaries fall under the definition in
(A)b.
1. 1. 3. V-second constructions (subject-Aux/V inversion; Aux to Comp)

Consider next the following data, which shows that unlike English and French,
Romanian does not have subject-Aux inversion:
(27)
a. * Va/arIon/elpleca miine?
will/ would John/ he leave tomorrow?
b. * A Ion/ el plecat ieri?
has John/ he left yesterday?
The type of movement that is illicit in (27)b is quite general across languages.
Following den Besten (1977, 1983), it is currently assumed that (28)a-c are
particular instantiations of the rule known as "V second" in Germanic languages:
auxiliaries (and lexical verbs) move out of the Infi position to which they raise at Sstructure, over the NP subject, towards a sentence-initial position, presumably
Comp:
(28)
a. Ist er gekommen?
has he come?
b. Kommt er?
comes he?
c. Will/ would John/ he leave tomorrow?
According to den Besten (1977,1983), Kayne (1984, Chapter 10), and Roberts and
Rizzi (1989), the same rule may be assumed to underlie the French examples in
(29):
(29)
a. L'as-tu mang6?
it have you eaten?
b. Le verra-t-il?
him seefuture he
'Will he see him?'
17
This problem may apparently be solved if we adopt the hypothesis proposed by Pollock
(1989), according to which the Infi node is split into two distinct functional heads, AGR and
Tense (see V. Motapanyane (1989)): AGR would host auxiliaries, and Tense would host lexical
verbs. This hypothesis immediately raises the question why in the other Romance languages
AGR and Tense cannot dominate auxiliaries and verbs respectively. Other technical questions
concern the conditions on verb/ auxiliary movement: is it possible to assume that the auxiliary,
which presumably governs VP, raises to AGR skipping Tense (in violation of Head to Head
movement), thus leaving Tense available as a landing site for V?
13
The examples in (28)-(29) show a number of cross-linguistic differences: (a) in

French and in Germanic languages other than English, V-second applies to either
lexical verbs or auxiliaries; in the latter case the lexical verb is left behind; (b) in
English, V-second applies exclusively to auxiliaries:
(30)
a. Will John come?

b. * Comes John .. ?
The impossibility of (30)b is due to the fact that in English, lexical verbs do not
raise to Infi, which is a necessary step (due to the condition on Head to Head
movement, see Travis (1984) and Baker (1988)) for the verb to reach Comp.
Let us now come back to Romanian: if a rule such as V-second exists in this
language, it applies either to inflected verbs (see (31 )a) or to Aux V sequences (see
(31)b), and this cannot easily be accounted for by the general principles of
language. The example in (31)a seems to be analogous to (29)b and (28)b in French
and German respectively, but (31)b does not have any counterpart in any of these
two languages:
(31) a. Pleac Ion miine ?
leaves John tomorrow
b. Vapleca Ion miine?^
will leave John tomorrow
'Will John leave tomorrow?'
Our task will be to account for (31)b and for the ungrammaticality of (27)a. It is
interesting to note that Romance languages other than Romanian show the
impossibility illustrated in (27)a. But they nonetheless differ from Romanian in that
they have other constructions obtained by a rule of Aux raising to Comp; the
relevant examples and analysis are due to Rizzi (1982):
(32) a. Questa commissione ritiene [aver loro sempre ottemperato agli obblighi
previsti dalla legge].
this commission thinks [have they always accomplished the requirements
imposed by the law]
'This commission thinks that they have always ...'
b. Avendo Mario accettato di aiutarci, potremo risolvere ilproblema.
having Mario accepted to help, we could solve the problem
Romanian does not present any construction of this type, in which the subject NP
would intervene between the auxiliary and the lexical verb.
l^Note that the order V-S-0 is possible, and probably preferred to V-O-S in questions,
independently of whether V is a simple verb or a AuxV sequence: crezi c va citi Ion cartea asta?
'do you think that will read John this book'.
1. 1. 4. Biclausal auxiliary structures (I)

Like the other Balkan languages (see Rivero (1988a; to appear)), Romanian
presents biclausal Tenses (the label CP/IP is meant to notate the hybrid status of
Romanian s subjunctives, see Chapter 3):
(33) Ion are, [cp/ip s-1 conduc la gar]
John has s -him takesubj to the station
'John will take him to the station'
(33) illustrates the colloquial future paradigm, constructed with the conjugated form
of the verb a avea 'to have' followed by a s subjunctive. 19 This is clearly a
biclausal construction: the embedded verb carries AGR features, and clitics can
only appear between s and the subsequent inflected verb, i.e., in die position they
normally occupy in subjunctives. Examples of the type in (33) are thus apparently
characterized by a structure that is entirely different from the auxiliary constructions
presented above.
But surprisingly, we find they have common properties. Floating quantifiers and
adverbs cannot intervene between the main verb and the subjunctive:
(34)
a. Ion are (*adesea) s einte (adesea) la pian.

John has (*often) s play (often) piano
'John will often play piano.'
b. Copiii au (*to{i) s einte (to{i) la pian.
the children have (*all) si play (all) the piano
This is what we might expect, if we assume (a) that adverbs and floating
quantifiers are generated in a pre-VP position and (b) that the subjunctive verb
obligatorily raises to Infi. We must of course also assume that adverbs are not
allowed to be generated in front of the upper VP. It may be reasonable to think that
this restriction is due to the auxiliary nature of the verb; adverbs modify lexical
verbs only.
What is not expected is the ungrammaticality of (35)a-b:
(35) a. *Are Ion s einte la pian?
has John s play the piano
b. *Aveam s-1 conduc la gar.20
[I] had s -him take to the station
(35)a shows that the auxiliary is not able to raise above the NP subject (a
grammatical question would be are s einte Ion la pian? 'has s play John (at) the
19-rhe complete paradigm is: (eu) am s plec / (tu) ai s pleci / (el) are s piece / (noi) avem s
plecm/ (voi) avefi s pleca(i / (ei) au s piece; but the plural forms tend to become less
productive, and are currently replaced by invariable : noi s plecm/ voi s pleca(i/ei s
piece.
20 T he star indicates that the purely future meaning is excluded; examples of this form are
nonetheless acceptable, but they become synonymous with the examples with a urma 'to follow,
to go to'.
15
piano) and (35)b indicates that the auxiliary cannot take Tense inflections. How can
we explain (35)a-b? Is it possible to show that these two impossibilities are
correlated? Why do mono- and bi-clausal auxiliary constructions behave alike?
Conclusions
To summarize, the following characteristics of Romanian auxiliaries have been
illustrated: (a) they cannot combine with Tense affixes, nor can they be embedded
under Tense auxiliaries; b) Romanian lexical verbs necessarily raise out of VP even
if an Aux is present; c) Aux is not subject to V-second (Romanian presents no rule
comparable to either the English subject-Aux inversion, or the French subject-clitic
inversion, or the Aux-to-Comp rule characteristic of Italian (and Portuguese, see
Raposo (1987)); in descriptive terms, Romanian presents no context in which the
subject NP can intervene between an auxiliary and the lexical verb. 21 Another
important fact about Romanian is that the three properties listed above define not
only monoclausal, but also biclausal auxiliary constructions.
The characteristics given in (b) and (c) could be captured by an adjacency
requirement: Romanian auxiliaries are necessarily adjacent to the verb, or to clitic
elements attached to the verb. This suggests that Romanian auxiliaries are clitic
elements, which is indeed correct (see Chapter 2). But this does not conclude the
analysis. We must still provide an adequate representation. It is not clear what kind
of position should be posited for clitic auxiliaries: the idea that they are under Infi,
supported by the property stated in (a), may seem appealing, but this is clearly not
sufficient, since English modals are generated under Infi, but do not qualify as
clitics.
What is then the underlying representation of Romanian auxiliary constructions?
No answer could so far be found to this question. This failure strongly suggests
that we must abandon the null hypothesis according to which Romanian auxiliaries
would be of the type defined in (A)b, found in Romance and Germanic languages.
1. 2. The structure of auxiliary constructions

1. 2. 1. Biclausal auxiliary structures ()
The biclausal tenses presented in 1.1.4. seem to rely on a configuration like that in
(36), characterized by two IP constituents, with V-to-I movement applying in both
the embedded and the main clause; C dominates s, and the higher V node
dominates the auxiliary:
21
T h e characteristics in a) and c) distinguish Romanian from French, Italian, Spanish and
Portuguese; b) seems to be instantiated in other pro-drop languages such as Italian and Spanish
(see Belletti (1990)). Note, however, that in Italian past participles may, but do not necessarily,
raise to Aux, as indicated by the distribution of floating quantifiers (which can intervene between
the auxiliary and the lexical verb); in Romanian on the other hand past participles necessarily raise
out of VP.
(36)
IP
V-Infl
VP
NP S
V'
tv
j
IP
CI
IP
V-Ir
VP
tv
NP<
In (36) no (Spec, IP) node has been inserted: the one in the upper clause is an A'position, while the one in the lower clause, besides being an A'-position, cannot
even be instantiated. The latter impossibility characterizes not only the subjunctives
that appear in biclausal tenses, but also those that appear with raising and control
configurations (see Chapter 3). I assume that clitics adjoin to a projection of Infi
(see Chapter 2). 22
Plausible as it may seem, the structure in (36) should be ruled out, since it
incorrectly predicts examples such as (35)a, repeated here, to be grammatical:
(35)
a.
IP
V-Infl
VP
*Are
Ion
[s ein
einte la pian]
Has
John
s plaj
play the piano
'Will John play the piano?'"
The ungrammatically of (35)a may stem from the fact that the auxiliary has moved
to Infi. Romanian auxiliaries would then be characterized as not being allowed to
raise to Infi. This would explain not only the ungrammatically of (35)a, but also
that of (35)b, if we assume that the only way for the verb to get Tense inflections is
by raising to Infi:
22
The adjunction of an X element to an XP constituent is ruled out by the current theory. It may
however be argued that adjunction to Tense is legitimate, due to its defective nature (see
Chomsky (1986)b on the defective character of IP).
(35)
b. *Aveam s-1 conduc la gar.

[I] had s -him take to the station
Since the auxiliary cannot move to Infi, this node is not only empty, but altogether
absent, because Infi cannot surface separated from V. Since Infi is absent,
Nominative case cannot be assigned in the higher clause. In other words, the
auxiliary structure in (33) is "biclausal" in the sense that the auxiliary takes a CP
complement, but unlike standard biclausal structures, the "main clause" of this
configuration lacks both an Infi node and an NP subject position. The only element
of the higher clause is the auxiliary itself, hence the configuration in (37):
(37)
AuxP
Aux
CP/IP
are
[s vin Ion]
The problem is that normally AuxP does not count as a sentential constituent. It
seems plausible to assume that the auxiliary is reanalyzed as being adjoined to
CP/IP. The following conventions are a possible technical implementation of this
idea:
(38) Functional Coindexation: Coindex adjacent functional X categories.
(39) Functional Adjunction: Adjoin X categories to the YP functional projection
with which they are coindexed.
Given (38) and (39), the configuration in (37) becomes (40), given in its developed
form:
(40)
CP/IP
Aux;
CP/IP
Clj IP
V-Inflj
VP
I \
NP V'
tv
NP
The pre-auxiliary position, which I have not indicated, is an A'-position, accessible

to dislocated elements, subjects and non-subjects alike.
The mechanisms of Functional Coindexation and Functional Adjunction have

the effect of merging all the functional projections related to the same lexical
projection. The same result can be obtained, perhaps more elegantly, if we adopt
Grimshaw's (1991) extended projection theory, under which IP, CP and AuxP are
extended projections of the verb. This theory does not however completely
eliminate Functional Adjunction, which is needed at least for cliticization. In so far
as Romanian auxiliaries will be shown to be clitics, it is reasonable to assume that
they are subject to adjunction.
The idea that Romanian "biclausal tenses" rely on a configuration in which one
single IP constituent is activated, seems paradoxical insofar as two AGR
morphemes are present (both the auxiliary and the lexical verb are inflected for
AGR). If the proposed analysis is correct, the Romanian data indicates that the
distribution of AGR morphemes does not depend on the distribution of Infi: AGR
may adjoin to Aux, even if the auxiliary does not raise to Infi (avea 'have' is
inflected for AGR). 23 I shall leave the technical details open for further research.
Note also that AGR features on the auxiliary in (33)a are not required by any
principle. We therefore expect them to be absent, which is indeed the case in
another Romanian future construction, which is identical to (33)a with respect to the
embedded clause, but differs from it by the use of an uninflected element o:
(41)
splec/pleci/piece...
s leave- lp / leave-2p,..
'I'll leave, etc., I am going to leave.'
1.2.2. Raising constructions

The structural configuration underlying Romanian biclausal auxiliary constructions
indicates clearly that they should not be assimilated to the French future
construction in (42):
(42)
[ip/ean va [ip t le voir]].

John goes [ipt him see]
'John will see him.'
It is clear that aller does not fall under the sirucfura/definition of auxiliaries given in
(A)b: in (42) aller does not take a VP, but an IP constituent. This future
construction could instead be analyzed in terms of structural raising. But aller
nonetheless falls under the thematic definition of auxiliaries (see (A)a), which
might explain why raising is obligatory (see *il va que Jean le voit 'it goes that John
sees him').
The Romanian structure in (40) differs from (42) insofar as one single IP
constituent is activated. Compare the following raising constructions: 2 4
23
x h i s seems consistent with the hypothesis suggested in Section 1.1.2. that AGR is an X
nominal element that does not project a maximal category, but adjoins to a projection of Infi.
24 0 n raising (and control) in s subjunctives see Chapter 4.
19
(43) Ion urmeaz s-o conduc la gar.

John follows s -her takesubj to the station
'John is to take her to the station.'
A urma is a raising verb (cf. urma s vin top' elevii a doua zi 'it followed that come
all the students the following day', 'all the students were to come ...'), which is like
auxiliaries insofar as it does not assign an external th-role. But beyond this
similarity, Romanian raising constructions differ crucially from Romanian auxiliary
constructions;25 compare (44)a-b with (35)a-b:
(44) a. Crezi c urmeazi Ion s ante?
[do you] think that follows also John s play
b. Copiii urmau s-1 conduc la gar.
the children followed s -him take to the station
Example (44)b shows that a urma is allowed to take Tense morphemes; (44)a
shows that the subject NP can intervene between the raising verb and the embedded
verb (Ion has raised from the subject position of the embedded clause to the subject
position in the main clause). The grammaticality of (44)a-b is expected: raising
verbs raise to Infi and correlatively a (non-thematic) structural position for the
subject is projected in the main clause, to which the subject of the lower clause may
raise. Therefore (43) and (44)a-b are correctly represented by the abstract structure
in (36). Due to V-to-I movement in the main clause, the raised NP subject shows
up between the raising verb and the embedded verb. In (43) the subject occupies the
pre-auxiliary position as a result of left dislocation.
To sum up, raising and auxiliary structures are alike insofar as no external throle is assigned, but they differ from each other in the number of subject Apositions (two vs one); correlatively, raising verbs rely on two IP constitutents,
whereas auxiliary configurations involve only one IP. Note that this is also true of
English and French. The difference between these languages and Romanian
concerns the location of the activated Infi and subject position (I assume that the
[NP,VP] position does not count as an -position in English or French; therefore,
in auxiliary structures the subject NP ends up in the (Spec, IP) position, as in (39)a
and b. In Romanian auxiliary structures, on the other hand (see (40)), the subject
occupies a lower position, namely the [Spec, VP] related to the lexical verb; no
subject position is associated with the auxiliary itself (recall that the pre-auxiliary
position is an A'-position in Romanian).
25
Note that concerning the position of adverbs and floating quantifiers, raising verbs behave on a
par with auxiliaries (compare (34)a-b):
(i)
Ion urmeaz (*adesea) s einte (adesea) la pian.
John follows (*often) s play (often) piano
'John is going to often play piano.'
(ii)
Copiii urmeaz (*to(i) s einte (to(i) la pian.
the children follow (*all) s play (all) the piano
The ungrammaticality of (i) is due to the fact that raising verbs do not allow for adverb
modification. The impossibility of (ii) seems to indicate that quantifiers can only be stranded in
the -position in which they have been generated (see Sportiche's analysis).
1.2.3. Monoclausal auxiliary structures ()

Let us now see whether the structure given in (40), which accounts correctly for the
"biclausal" future construction, could be postulated for the "monoclausal" auxiliary
constructions presented in Sections 1.1.1. to 1.1.3. This would be desirable,
because Romanian auxiliary constructions were shown to present essentially the
same properties, independently of their being mono- or bi-clausal. Recall also that
the main conclusion of Sections 1.1.1 to 1.1.3. was that we cannot assume that the
auxiliaries in (45)a-c take a VP complement.
(45) a. voi pleca
[I] will leave
b.
pleca
[I] would leave
c. am plecat
[I] have left
The hypothesis that examples (45)a-c rely on (40) seems extremely surprising at
first sight. The first problem concerns the necessary absence of the particle a in
(45)a-b. This particle, characteristic of infinitivals, is a close counterpart of s (see
Chapter 3), and therefore we would expect it to show up in (45)a-b, on a par with
the presence of s i in (37). Assuming a to be a Comp element, its absence in (45)a-b
could be interpreted as indicating that the future and conditional auxiliaries do not
take CP (or CP/IP) complements but rather IP complements. But then we expect
pronominal clitics to be able to adjoin to the low Infi, which incorrectly predicts
examples (46) to be grammatical:
(46)
a. *am il rugat
b. *a$ilruga
Let us then come back to the unifying hypothesis, according to which the auxiliaries
in (45)a-c take a CP/IP complement. The absence of a could be due to the rule of
Move I-to-C, which moves the inflected verb to Comp and thereby makes it
impossible for a to show up. 26
Let us then assume that (45)a-b are represented by an abstract configuration of
type (40), and by the obligatory movement of the lower (V-)Infl to Comp. The
structure of (45)a-b would then be (45'):
26
S e e den Besten's (1977, 1983) analysis of V second; according to Roberts's (1991) updating of
den Besten's proposal, Move I-to-C is a case of substitution into an empty head position.
(45') b.
CP/IP
Aux
CP/IP
C
IP
V-lnfl
VP
I \
NP V'
Is
tv NP;
Jt
The idea that Move I to C applies as shown in (45')b seems inadequate, because in
general this rule does not apply in embedded clauses. This problem is only
apparent, because it is natural to assume that Move I to C is free to apply if the
higher verb subcategorizes for a projection headed by Infi. And this might be the
case for auxiliaries.
It is however not completely clear why I-to-C movement is obligatory in (45):
due to the rule of Restructuring Incorporation, to be proposed in Chapter 2, the
sequence a V+Infl counts as [Infia V+], and this should suffice to satisfy the
requirement imposed on auxiliaries. Note that this analysis must indeed be assumed
for biclausal auxiliaries: in am s plec the auxiliary am takes as a complement CP/IP
headed by [inf V+Infl]. The fact that a infinitivals do not show up with
auxiliaries may be related to the fact that (full) infinitivals are generally rare in
auxiliary structures, possibly because of their "intrinsic" nominal character (see
Kayne (1982)): in English the particle to is absent with modals 27 and in French the
infinitival became incorporated into future and conditional paradigms: manger-ai(s),
manger-a(i)s, etc. (see Lema and Rivero (1989)). The obligatory I-to-C movement
that applies in (45) could be a means to turn an infinitival into a verbal projection. 28
Let us now consider the position of pronominal clitics, and assume, as we did in
(40), that they occupy the IP-adjunction position:
2 7 W e may of course stipulate that modals and to occupy the same position (see, however, the
problems that this raises concerning the position of not), but we may wonder why this should be
so.
2 8 Note
that we must also assume I-to-C for participles (this is true in Romanian not only for past
participles (see (48)a), but also for present participles (see Chapter 2)) - the reason in this case
would be that the verb has to move as high up as it can, i.e., to C, if no lexical complementizer
is there.
(47)
CP/IP
Aux CP/IP
C
IP
CI;
IP
l \\
V-Infl VP
NP V'
Jt
As discussed in Chapter 2, Move I to C may either take pronominal clitics along 29
or strand them. 30 The first option is clearly not correct here, because examples (46)
are ungrammatical. The second option on the other hand, directly accounts for the
position of the singular feminine clitic 'her':
(48)
a.
Amrugat-o.
[I] have asked-her

b . A
ruga-o.
[I] would ask-her

The problem is that all the other clitics necessarily show up in front of the auxiliary:
(49)
a. L-am
rugat..
[I] him-have asked

b.
L-aruga.
[I] him-would ask

Examples (48)a-b and (49)a-b illustrate a well-known idiosyncracy of the
Romanian clitic system: unlike all the other clitics, 'her' must follow the lexical
verb in compound tenses (examples (48)a-b are ungrammatical if we insert in
front of the auxiliary),31 while all the other clitics precede the auxiliary; in simple
tenses precedes the verb, just like the other clitics. When the same compound
29
S e e Section 2.3.1. in Chapter 2.

S e e Romance positive imperatives (see den Besten (1977, 1983)), as well as an important
number of other (old and modern) Romance constructions.
31
T h e future paradigm is somewhat less clear than the present perfect and the conditional forms:
the clitic appears either after the infinitive or in front of the auxiliary with a strong preference for
the latter: voi vedea / voi vedea-o '[I] her will see / [I] will see-her'. This difference between the
future and the conditional paradigms is due to phonological rules: the future auxiliary presents an
initial consonant, while the conditional auxiliary starts with a vowel. Note that other than this
difference, the future has in common with the other compound forms the possibility of a
postverbal position for the clitic, which in modem Romanian is disallowed in simple tenses.
30
23
verbal form hosts both and another clitic, clitic splitting arises, one clitic
preceding the verb, and the other following it:
(50)
Le-am artat-o / Le-a arta-o.

[I] them-Dat-have shown-her / [I] them-would show-her
Obviously the contrast in (48) vs (49)a-b cannot be assumed to be syntactic: rules

of syntax are probably not sensitive to specifications such as "feminine singular". It
is instead possible to assume that only one of the two positions in (48)-(49) is an Sstructure position, the other one being derived in P(honological) F(orm), by
phonological rules. This hypothesis is probably undebatable;32 the only question to
be settled is which position to assume to be the S-structure position: the one in (49)
is currently assumed by Romanian linguists (see also Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)) to be
regular, the one in (48) is considered to be idiosyncratic.
In Chapter 2 empirical evidence will be presented, which supports the opposite
hypothesis, according to which the position of 'her' is the relevant one for Sstructure representation, whereas the position of the other clitics is "phonological".
The hypothesis that I-to-C movement applies in (48)a-b captures a generalization
that holds for a wide range of old and modern Romanian constructions: the
postverbal position of clitics correlates with the absence of lexical complementizers.
This is due to the fact that I-to-C movement is substitution into an empty head
position, which precludes the insertion of a lexical complementizer. This correlation
can be observed in (48)b: the particle a - which is presumably to be analyzed as a
complementizer - is absent, and the clitic is necessarily postverbal. Compare (51),
where Move (V-)Infl to Comp does not apply (as is obvious given the presence of
a, presumably in C), and correlatively the clitic is preverbal:
(51) inainte de a inlni
before that to her meet
'before meeting her'.
Conclusions
To sum up, the abstract representation proposed here for Romanian auxiliary
structures is "biclausal" in the sense that the auxiliary is a sister to a CP/IP
constituent. However, auxiliary constructions are "monoclausal" insofar as the
auxiliary adjoins to CP/IP, and neither the upper Infi node nor the upper subject
position is projected.33
32
For other explanations of the postposition of see Bredemeier (1976: 3642).

A number of questions arise concerning the position of the Neg head:
(i)
Vreau s nu plec.
(ii)
* Vreau nu s plec.
(iii) *Am s nu plec.
(iv) Nu am s plec.
In (i) Neg governs an IP complement. The ungTammaticality of (ii) indicates that Neg cannot
govern a CP (or CP/IP) complement; we may say that CP is a barrier for the relation that Neg
must entertain with the variable it binds in IP. The ungrammaticality of (iii) is obviously not due
33
1. 3. Auxiliaries, bare infinitives and the distribution of clitics

A number of remarks are necessary here, concerning a) the relation between
auxiliaries and bare infinitives, i.e., infinitives which lack a; b) the relation between
I-to-C and bare infinitives; c) the relation between the distribution of clitics and I-toC.
1. 3. 1. Auxiliaries and bare infinitives
It is important to avoid a hasty generalization, according to which Romanian bare
infinitives would necessarily be obtained by I-to-C movement (thus rendering the
presence of the particle a impossible). Consider indeed the following paradigm:
(52)
(53)
(54)
*Pot vedea-o.
[I] can see-her
*Pot vedea.
[I] can her see
pot vedea.34
[I] her can see
In modern Romanian the verb a putea 'can, may' takes either a s subjunctive or a
bare infinitive as a complement. But in the latter case the distribution of clitics
clearly indicates that the rule of I-to-C does not apply (see (52) and compare with
(48)b). Example (53) on the other hand shows that the clitic cannot attach on the left
of the embedded verb either, the only possibility being attachment on the left of the
auxiliary, as in (54). The distribution in (53)-(54) can be understood if we assume
a) that at S-structure Romanian clitics cannot adjoin to V, but only to Infi and b)
that the bare infinitive in these examples presents no Infi node to which the clitic
could attach; hence the clitic is forced to adjoin to the first available Infi, the one in
the main clause. What is then the categorial status of the bare infinitive in (52)-(54)?
It may be VP (see the structure in (55)). Since no Infi node is present, the verb
cannot raise to Infi, but must stay under VP:
to the relation between the complementizer s and nu (see (i)), and therefore can only be imputed
to the presence of the auxiliary: these elements cannot govern a NegP constituent. Finally, (iv) is
grammatical, as opposed to (ii), because here the CPAP complement headed by s has the status
of an IP constituent (due to the presence of the auxiliary, which can only adjoin to a constituent
headed by the (inflected) verb. Thus, s subjunctives, which are systematically ambiguous
between CP and IP assume one or the other categorial identity, depending on the context. If the
various elements of the context impose contradictory requirements on s subjunctives, we end up
with an ungrammatical sequence (see (iii), where the subjunctive should be analyzed as CP due to
the position of the negation, but as IP, due to the presence of the auxiliary).
^ N o t e that the example in (54) can be said to be characterized by clitic climbing, because the Aposition identified by the clitic is inside the VP governed by pot, note however that no clitic A'position can be assumed out of which the clitic would have raised. In other words, (54) is
characterized by a direct relation between the clitic and the -position that it identifies.
(55)
25
IP
CI
IP
l \
V-Infl VP
NPS
IX-VP
L\.- v
NP
Oj
pot
NPo
vedea t;
Unlike auxiliaries, a putea is able to raise to Infi. The two manifestations of this
movement can indeed be observed; (56)a shows that the subject of the main clause
can intervene between a putea and the bare infinitive (compare with future and
conditional structures); (56)b shows that a putea combines with Tense morphemes,
like lexical verbs, and unlike auxiliaries:
(56) a. Poate Ion veni miine?
can John come tomorrow
b. Ion putuse veni.
John can-past perfect come
'John had been able to come.'
The structure in (55) thus appears to be supported both by the distribution of clitics
and by the syntactic properties of a putea. This verb is comparable to its
counterparts in French and other Romance languages, insofar as it presents two
distinct interpretations, currently labelled "epistemic" and "root", which are
respectively illustrated below. Note that in (57) the subject occupies th (Spec, IP)
position, after having passed through the [Spec, VP] position of poate, as shown in
(55):
(57) a. Ion poate ajunge dinlr-o clip in alta.
'John may arrive from one moment to the other.'
b. Ion poate citi 100 pagini intr-o or.
'John is able to read 100 pages in an hour.'
Under the epistemic meaning a putea does not impose selectional restrictions on its
subject; it is therefore reasonable to assume that in this case it is a sort of raising
verb: the embedded subject raises to the main subject position, leaving behind an
NP trace. Under the root meaning, a putea does impose selectional restrictions on
its subject, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the example in (57)b is a
control configuration, with a PRO in the subject position of the lower VP. Since
PRO is ungoverned (by virtue of the PRO theorem, see Chomsky (1981)), we
must assume that "root" a putea does not govern into its VP complement, but we
will not investigate the technical details of this proposal here. The exact analysis of
these examples is only partially relevant here. The data in (52)-(54) and (56)a-b
indicates that the bare infinitive governed by a putea 'may, can' is a VP constituent,
as opposed to the bare infinitives governed by auxiliary verbs, which are CP
constituents in which I-to-C movement applies; Romanian bare infinitives thus
appear to be of different categorial types. Note however that a putea may take a CP
complement: in older stages of Rumanian a infinitives were possible (cf (58)a), and
in both those stages and the modern language s subjunctives are frequent, in free
variation with bare infinitives:
(58) a. Ion poate a cinta dac vrea.
John can to sing if he wants
b. Ion poate s einte dac vrea.
John can s sing-subj if he wants
The question is then why, given the possibility of (58), I-to-C is not allowed to
apply in the embedded CP, and in particular in (58)a. It is reasonable to assume that
this impossibility, which is clearly indicated by the distribution of clitics in (56)a-c),
is again due to the fact that a putea is not an auxiliary. More precisely, I-to-C
movement can apply in embedded clauses only if the main verb subcategorizes for a
V projection (on a similar suggestion for the French clitic subject inversion see
Rizzi and Roberts (1989)), and this is not the case for a putea.
1. 3. 2. Bare innitives and clitic adverbs
Consider next the distribution of clitic adverbs:
(59) a. (nu) (mai) poate (*mai) scrie
[he] (not) (again) can (*again) write
b. (prea) poate (*prea) spune ce vrea
[he] (too much) can (*too much) say what [he] wants
(60) a. ar mai citi-o / va mai citi-o/a mai citit-o
[he] would again read-it / will again read-it / has again read-it
b. ar gi scrie / va scrie / a sens
[he] would even write / will even write / has even written
(61) a. nemaivzindu-1
notagainseeing-him
b. Mai las-1 in pace.
again leave-him in peace
The data in (60)a-b indicates that in simple tenses clitic adverbs necessarily show
up in front of the inflected verb, but after pronominal clitics. In compound tenses
they always appear between auxiliaries and the lexical verb. It has been suggested
that two possible analyses could be adopted: (a) the adverb could be generated in a
position which precedes the position to which the lexical verb raises; (b) the adverb
is directly base generated on the verb. The data in (59) quite clearly indicates that
the second hypothesis is incorrect: were the adverb attached to the verb itself, we
could not understand why these examples are incorrect. This impossibility can be
captured if we assume that these adverbs necessarily attach to an Infi node, which is
absent in (59). The examples in (60) indicate that these adverbs cliticize on Infi, and
therefore on the verb raised to Infi, and are taken along by the rule of I-to-C
movement, which leaves pronominal clitics behind (see (60)a). Note that a
comparable sequence, Adv-V-cl, can be observed in (61), which is also obtained
by the rule of I-to-C.
To summarize, the proposed analysis accounts for the following cluster of
differences between Romanian auxiliaries and a putea 'can, may':
(62)
a.
b.
c.
d.
pot
Vinfinitive
Aux
Aux Adv V...

Aux V-o
*Aux NP V...
(Tense features)
*pot Adv [V...]

*pot V-o....
potNPV...
pot-Tense *Aux-Tense
(intervening adverbial clitic)

(postverbal (fem sing))
(intervening NP subject)
1. 4. Auxiliary structures and Long Head Movement

Consider now the examples in (63), where the lexical verb shows up in front of the
auxiliary:
(63)
a. miratu-m-am
/miratu-te-ai...
wondered-me-have [I] / wondered-you-have [you]

wondered/ you wondered'
b.
mira-m-a
wonder-me-would [I]
'I'd wonder'
c.
pleca-voi
leave-shall [I]
shall leave'
The syntactic difference between (63) and their non-inverted counterparts in (64)
correlates with semantic or illocutionary differences, which will not be discussed
here:35
(64)
a. m-am mirat/te-ai
mkat...
[I] me-have wondered / [you] you-have wondered

wondered / you wondered'
b. m-a
mira
[I] me-would wonder

'I'd wonder'
c.
voipleca
[I] shall leave

The type of inverted paradigm illustrated in (63), still alive in modern Romanian
(see also European Portuguese) used to exist in older stages of Romace languages,
35
S e e Rivero (1988a; to appear) for a suggestion concerning the triggering elements of the V
movement responsible for the inverted conjugations.
Old Spanish in particular.36 The survival of this construction (labelled "Long Head
Movement" in Lema and Rivero (1989, 1990); Rivera (to appear)) in Romanian
may be related to the existence of parallel constructions in the other Balkan
languages and surrounding areas (Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbo-Croation,
Slovene, Slovak, Polish).
I will not try to compare the Romanian data with the parallel constructions found
in other languages. My purpose will be to discuss the theoretical problems raised
by this construction. It will be shown that a potential ECP violation is circumvented
due to the particular type of auxiliary constructions that was argued for in previous
sections. By contrast, auxiliary inversion would lead to an ECP violation in the
other modern Romance languages, due to the structural properties of their
auxiliaries. This theory is more constrained than Lema and Rivera's and as such
seems preferable, provided that crosslinguistic evidence supports it. As usual, this
is extremely difficult to evaluate at this stage of the investigation, but I would like to
stress how important a careful analysis of the data is.
The type of structure that one has to assign a given sequence of elements is an
extremely complicated issue, and very subtle arguments have to be taken into
account in order to choose between competing alternatives. A good case in point is
the analysis of auxiliary constructions in Romanian itself, for which the intuitively
most obvious hypothesis, unanimously adopted by previous research (including
Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)) was discarded in the previous section. Lema and Rivero
assume that the auxiliary constructions found in the various languages that present
auxiliary inversion are of the same fundamental type as that found in the wellstudied Romance and Germanic languages, where the auxiliary takes a VP
complement. A closer investigation of this area may lead to a revision of this
hypothesis.
It is also not clear that all the auxiliary inversions that can be observed are of the
same type. We owe to Lema and Rivero (1989, 1990) a careful distinction between
VP-movement and the auxiliary inversion illustrated in (63), which is to be
analyzed as head movement of the verb across the intervening auxiliary. There
seems to exist at least a third construction - labelled Participle-fronting by Lema and
Rivero (1990) - which resembles Platzack's (1987) Stylistic Fronting in Modern
Icelandic. A more precise typology of head movement is clearly needed. The
prediction that I would like to make is that the type of head movement to which the
Romanian paradigm in (63) belongs can only be found in languages which present
the Romanian type of auxiliary constructions.
3The examples in (i)-(ii) are taken from Lema and Rivero (1989); EP and OS stand respectively
for European Portuguese and Old Spanish:
(i)
DIR- se-ia
um povo predestinado.
(EP)
TELL-SE+imp-had a people predestined
'One would say it is a predestined people.'
(ii)
Si yo vivo, DOBLAR vos he la soldada
(OS)
If 1 live, DOUBLE you I-have the wages
'If I live, I will double your pay'.
29
1. 4. 1. Auxiliary inversion and the ECP

Let us now consider the underlying representation of examples (63), assuming (a)
the structure of Romanian auxiliary constructions proposed previously and (b) that
the relevant type of movement is head movement of the verb. The hypothesis in (b)
is underspecified, and this allows two distinct possibilities concerning the element
affected by movement. According to Lema and Rivero the verb is directly raised
from its VP-internal position to Comp. Given my proposal concerning the structure
of auxiliaries, the target of movement is Infi, and only indirectly the verb, insofar as
it has previously raised to Infi. In (65) I leave aside clitics, to be discussed in
Chapter 2, against the background of a general theory of cliticization:
(65) CP^
C
CP/IP
V-I
Aux
CP/IP
C
tv-i
IP.
I
[vp...tv]
tV-I
[vp...tv.]
vazut-am
Seen-have-lst
It is clear that the movement rule illustrated in (65) violates the Head Movement
Constraint (see Travis (1984) and Baker (1988)), which forbids head movement
over an intervening head: (V+)Infl is an X category that bypasses another X
category, the auxiliary. Chomsky (1986)b has pointed out that the Head Movement
Constraint need not be stated in the grammar as such, but derives as a consequence
from the ECP. Since the Head Movement Constraint per se is not part of the
grammar, it may be violated, provided the ECP is obeyed. This predicted
dissociation between the Head Movement Constraint and the ECP is precisely what
we observe in configurations like (65). Since the construction is grammatical, the
ECP is presumably obeyed, a conclusion forced upon any GB analysis of the data
(see Ouhalla (1988), Lema and Rivero (1989, 1990), Roberts (1991)). It is also
commonly assumed that the relevant ECP requirement in the case of head
movement is antecedent government:
(66) properly governs iff (th-governs or/and) antecedent-governs .
Given on the one hand the disjunctive formulation of the ECP, and on the other
hand the empirical necessity to require antecedent-government of Head movement,
Chomsky (1986b: 68-78) has suggested that the clause (b) be suppressed from the
definition of th-government given in (70). According to this modified definition of

th-government, the trace of X elements will not be th-marked, and the ECP could
be satisfied only by antecedent-government. If one wants - as I do - to maintain the
(b) clause in (70), one may either adopt a conjunctive formulation of the ECP (one
which requires both th-govemment and antecedent-government, see Rizzi (1990))
or else define the ECP exclusively in terms of antecedent-government; the brackets
in (66) are a way of indicating these alternatives.
Let us now turn to the definition of (antecedent) government (see Chomsky's
(1986)b definitions in (18), (25) and (26)):
(67)
governs iff m-commands and there is no , a barrier for , such

that excludes a .
(68) is a banier for iff (a) or (b):
a. immediately dominates , a blocking category for ;
b. is a blocking category for , * IP.
(69) is a blocking category for iff is not L-marked and dominates .
Crucial for the present discussion is the status of Infi and auxiliaries with respect to
their L-marking properties. L-marking being restricted to lexical categories, it is
currently assumed that the relation between Infi and its VP complement is not one
of L-marking, but only one of th-govemment:
(70)
th-governs iff (a) is a zero-level category that th-marks , and , are

sisters or (b) is the head of a sister of a .
The notion of th-marking is in general related to the assignment of a th-role. This is

clearly not the case for functional elements: Infi does not assign any th-role to its
VP complement. Following Zagona (1988), Gueron and Hoekstra (1988), Lema
and Rivero (1989, 1990), and many others we may use the notion of Tensemarking, to refer to the subcase of th-government characteristic of Infi. The main
properties of Infi may be summarized as follows:
(71) a. Infi th-governs, but does not L-mark its VP complement.
b. is Tense-marked if is th-governed by Infi.
c. A V raised to Infi L-marks the VP out of which it has raised.
I differ from the above mentioned authors insofar as I do not assume that
"functional" or "aspectual" auxiliaries (these labels can be found in Lema and
Rivero (1989, 1990) and Chomsky (1986)b, respectively) are able to Tense-mark
their VP complement. Following Chomsky (1986b: 73) I assume (72) (Chomsky's
term "aspectual element" has been replaced by "auxiliary"):
(72)
Auxiliaries are "defective" verbs that select but do not th-mark VP.
31
Since they do not th-mark VP, auxiliaries do not Tense-mark VP either. It is only
via their relation to Infi (e.g., by raising to Infi) that auxiliaries are able to th-mark,
or more precisely to Tense-mark their VP complement.37
Having outlined these current assumptions, let us now turn to the configuration
in (65), and see in which way it satisfies the ECP; (73) is the bracketed
representation of the tree in (65):
(73)
V+I
[CP/IP Aux
[cp/ip ty+i [ip t-v+i

It
\{
[VP
The verb moved to Infi L-marks the VP that it has raised out of; therefore VP is no
longer a barrier, and does not transmit barrierhood to IP. There are at least two
reasons that may be invoked for the non-barrierhood of CP: its head is empty (it is
filled only as a result of I-to-C movement); note, furthermore, that even in case the
complementizer a were present, it would count as adjoined to IP (see Chapter 3),
and thus no CP barrierhood would arise. Finally, the last step is also legitimate,
because the auxiliary itself adjoins to CP/IP. Since no barrier intervenes between
the various steps of the V raising in (73), antecedent government holds, as required
by the ECP.
Let me stress that the proposed explanation concerning the way in which the
ECP is satisfied does not introduce any ad hoc assumption: what has been used is
the current idea that V movement out of VP is licit only if (on the first step) the
verb raises to Infi, from where V is able to L-mark the VP out of which it has
raised, thus voiding its barrierhood. The subsequent steps are legitimate due to the
adjunction configuration, which does not create barrierhood. This straightforward
account of inverted conjugations is made possible by the particular configuration of
auxiliary constructions proposed in previous sections on independent grounds.
1. 4. 2. On the absence of auxiliary inversion
Consider for comparison the configuration characteristic of the (A)b type auxiliaries
found in modem Romance languages other than Romanian; the structure given in
(74) is currently assumed for the perfect auxiliaries avoir/etre:
(74)
[IP Aux-I [ Aux p t Aux tvp -V ..]]] 38
7 Here I differ slightly from Chomsky (1986b: 73), who assumes that by raising to Infi, an
aspectual becomes able to L-mark VP. It is difficult to see how we can make L-marking come
into play, since neither Infi nor the aspectual element are L-markers.
38 It
is however reasonable to assume that participial VPs are governed by an Infi node (see Kayne
(1987)), which has not been inserted in (43); if this hypothesis is correct, we must explain why,
in Romance languages other than Romanian, participial Infi is not an adequate host for clitics (be
they pronouns or auxiliaries). One may suggest that Infi can be a host for clitics only if it triggers
V-to-I movement, but not if it is subject to Affix-hopping. If this is correct, we would have to
show that in Romance languages other than Romanian, participial Infi is subject to Affixhopping.
The auxiliary in (74) does not adjoin to a projection of Infi, but instead it moves
(just like any other verb) to Infi.
According to (72) the auxiliary does not th-mark VP; a fortiori it does not Lmark VP, which is thereby a barrier. Given the configuration in (74), this barrier
cannot be voided by V raising, because there is no available landing site from
which the raised V could L-mark the VP. The V raising in (74) is thus blocked, as
indicated by the diamond, by the barrierhood of VP, and redundantly by the
barrierhood of AuxP and IP.
According to this analysis the absence of inverted conjugations in modern
French or Italian is due to the type of auxiliary constructions that they present. In
these configurations V raising is blocked by the ECP, under the current definitions
of the relevant notions.
It is interesting to compare the account proposed here with Lema and Rivera
(1989, 1990), who consider - modulo slight variations from one paper to another that inverted conjugations are permitted in configurations such as (74). The ECP
would be obeyed due to the following assumptions which would have to be added
to the current theory :
(75)
a. Functional auxiliaries Tense-mark their VP complement.

b. A Tense-marked VP is not a barrier.
c. An AuxP headed by a functional auxiliary (i.e., by a Tense-marking
auxiliary) is not a barrier (at least not a barrier for the raising of the Tensemarked V).
These assumptions differ from the current theory presented above: (75)a
generalizes to auxiliaries a property that Chomsky assumes for Infi exclusively
(recall that Tense-marking is simply a label for "th-marking by Infi"); (75)b is a
weakening of the L-marking requirement for non-barriers; (75)c may be viewed as
an extension of the class of defective blocking categories: besides IP we would also
have a certain type of AuxPs.
The first objection to this account is, of course, its stipulative and costly
character. The second problem concerns the account of the (crosslinguistic)
difference between those auxiliary constructions that allow and those that do not
allow auxiliary inversion. According to Lema and Rivera, the possibility of inverted
conjugations depends on the auxiliary qualifying as a "weak"/"functional" auxiliary
(as opposed to "strong"/"lexical" auxiliaries); it is due to the presence of such an
auxiliary that (75) can apply and thereby the ECP can be met.
I agree with Lema and Rivera that functional auxiliaries (defined as in (72)), as
opposed to lexical auxiliaries or modals (see below), allow the verb to bypass them.
However, I do not believe that this is a sufficient condition. A case in point is the
Spanish aspect auxiliary haber (the case of Italian and French may be slightly
different, given the existence of the avoir/etre alternation), which qualifies as a
functional auxiliary by the definition in (72). In order to account for the
impossibility of auxiliary inversion, Lema and Rivero (1989, 1990) have to
stipulate that haber is not a functional auxiliary, but it is difficult to see by which
definition of functional auxiliaries haber would count as lexical and the Romanian
am/ai... as functional. One may wonder whether independent evidence exists, other
than the possibility of the inverted conjugations itself, to determine whether a given
auxiliary is functional or not; otherwise the term "functional auxiliary" is simply a
notational device, which captures a given phenomenon, but without really

correlating it with other empirical data: the auxiliaries that allow inversion would be
"functional", as opposed to all the others.
According to die present proposal the status of "functional" auxiliary (see (A)a)
is independent of the possibility of inverted paradigms, which are made possible by
a particular structural configuration (namely that in (65)/(73), which characterizes
Rumanian auxiliaries), by virtue of which the current definition of the ECP is
satisfied. The Spanish haber is a functional auxiliary which cannot be bypassed by
the lexical verb because in a configuration such as (74) V raising would lead to an
ECP violation.
1. 4. 3. Inverted conjugations and relativized minimality
Let us now assume Rizzi's (1990: 7) relativized definition of the ECP, which
imposes a stronger condition for the case at hand:
(76) Relativized Minimality: X a-govems [a-governs = th- or antecedent-governs]
Y only if there is no such that:
(i) is a typical potential a-governor for Y;
(ii) c-commands Y and does not c-command X.
Consider again (65): the auxiliary is a potential antecedent governor for the trace of
the raised verb, 39 and by virtue of (76) this would lead to an ECP violation. To
account for the grammaticality of (65) I will assume a rule of Merging, to be further
motivated in Chapter 2:
(77)
Merging: Adjoin to an adjacent element , where and bear the same

functional index.
Assuming that Merging necessarily applies in inverted conjugations (in order to

prevent an ECP violation), the configuration in (65) should be modified as in (78) the part set in bold characters indicates the merging of the auxiliary with the
preposed verb:
(78)
V-Aux [ A u x P tAl|X [cp ty+i Lip ty+i tvp l v ]

+
It
It
The conditions on Merging stated in (77) are met in (78): the auxiliary and the verb
raised to Infi bear the same functional index (see the mechanism of Functional
Coindexation defined in (38) and the raised V is adjacent to the auxiliary.
Granting that this account is correct, and that Merging obligatorily applies in
inverted conjugations (in order to avoid a potential ECP violation), let us see
whether type (A)b auxiliaries allow Merging. In (74), repeated here, the auxiliary
and the verb do not bear the same functional index because the verb has not raised
39
This differs from Roberts (to appear) who assumes an A/A' distinction between X positions,
and uses it in order to void the effects of minimality in Long Head Movement.
to Infi; therefore it does not count as a functional category and Functional

Coindexation cannot apply. One may perhaps assume that Tense-marking is
sufficient for Merging to apply. Depending on a decision concerning this point,
Merging can or not apply in (74); the question mark indicates that I leave this
question open for further investigation. The question may be important on general
grounds. However, the answer is perhaps irrelevant for the empirical question at
hand if the previous discussion is correct, and V raising is in any case ruled out in
(74), repeated here, by the standard (i.e., non-relativized) version of the ECP.
(74)
Aux-I[ A u x P t A u x [ V p..V..]
As already noted above, the mechanism of Functional Coindexation is in part

comparable to the use of "extended projections" in the sense of Grimshaw (1991):
functionally coindexed elements belong to the same extended projection. Note
however that the notion of extended projection cannot help us explain why I-to-C is
illicit in (74): although the lexical verb belongs to the extended projection of Infi, it
cannot bypass the auxiliary.
Consider next the future paradigm in (79), made up of the invariable particle o,
distinct from the pronominal clitic 'her', followed by a subjunctive clause: 40
(79)
splec
spleci/
s mai
ascult
[I]o s leave- 1st / [I] s leave-2nd / [I] s him again examine

'I'll leave / you'll leave'/ 'I'll examine him again'
The particle is obviously a clitic: it appears in a fixed position, it cannot move, nor
appear in isolation. These characteristics correlate with the fact that Functional
Coindexation may apply (see (38)): o, s and the Infi head to which the verb has
raised are adjacent functional elements. Hence (79'):
(79')
CP/IP
Aiixj
CP/IP
Pronj
IP
i n f i i ^ ^ VP
Adv
V-Infl NP
NP;
s
4
il
mai
ascult
This paradigm is in the process of replacing the one discussed in Section 1.2.1, made up of the
verb a avea 'to have' (inflected for AGR) followed by a subjunctive.
35
Note now that the examples in (79) do not present inverted forms:
(80) a. *plec-o-s
b. *spleci-o
(80)a can be ruled out if we assume that I-to-C cannot bypass two elements in one
step;41 the ungrammaticality of (80)b on the other hand is due to the fact that I-to-C
can move V-I but not s V-I.
To sum up, the rule of I-to-C that bypasses auxiliaries has been treated as an
instance of the rule Move Infl-to-Comp. The ECP is met due to the particular type
of auxiliary constructions characteristic of Romanian. Among the other Romance
languages, auxiliary inversion is also permitted in European Portuguese and in Old
Spanish, for future and conditional auxiliaries (but not for the perfect auxiliary).
According to the theory proposed here, this possibility indicates that these
auxiliaries present the structural properties of Romanian auxiliaries. This may
explain why it is precisely future and conditional auxiliaries that have become fully
bound morphemes in modern Spanish; compare perfect auxiliaries, which used to
function as free morphemes and have preserved that status.
1. 4. 4. Modals
The proposed analysis also accounts for the impossibility of inverted conjugations
with a putea 'can, may', for which the structure in (81) has been proposed on
independent grounds (see (55) and the generalizations in (62)):
(81)
IP
pot
tp0t
ascult
In (81) vedea 'see' cannot prepose over pot, because there are no intermediary
landing sites for the verb to raise stepwise, thus enabling it to void the various
intervening barriers (the two VPs and IP):
Two pronominal clitics can be bypassed by the verb, because strings of pronominal clitics
probably occupy one single clitic position, see the discussion of examples (24) in Chapter 2.
(82)
V[ I P pot+l [ V P t pot [ V P t v ..]

A
L
,
I
Note that this account is exactly the same as that proposed for the ungrammaticality
of inverted conjugations with type (A)b functional auxiliaries (see (74)).
The proposed analysis thus accounts for the contrast between Romanian
auxiliaries and a putea as to the possibility of inverted conjugations. This contrast
can now be added (see (62)e) to the list given in (62)a-d, of the other differences
between the two constructions:
(62) pot Vinfinitive
Aux V
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Aux Adv V...

(intervening adverbial clitic)
Aux V-o
(postverbal (fem sing))
*Aux NP V...
(intervening NP subject)
*Aux-Tense
(Tense features)
(inverted conjugation)
*pot Adv [V...]

*pot V-o....
pot NP V...
pot-Tense
*V-pot V-Aux
1. 5. The licensing of verbs, auxiliaries and types of IP constituents

The main result obtained in the foregoing sections is a structural representation of
Romanian auxiliary constructions which accounts correctly for the main empirical
generalizations that were brought out in the descriptive sections. A number of
apparently unrelated properties could thus be captured in a unified way. Let us now
tiy to go further, and ask why Romanian auxiliaries differ from French/ English
auxiliaries: does this difference follow as a consequence from another
crosslinguistic difference? This question can be decomposed:
(83)
Why does Romanian lack auxiliaries with the structural properties of

French/English auxiliaries: why is [AuxP^"* ^ P ] legitimate in French, but
not in Romanian?
(84) Why does Romanian present raising/control verbs with the structural
properties of French/English auxiliaries (see a putea 'may, can'): why is
[yppoi VP] legitimate in Romanian, as opposed to [AuxPAux VP]?
(85) Why is the type of Romanian auxiliaries absent in French/English?
The answers to be proposed below rely on the Tense filter to be introduced in
Section 1.5.2. and on the hypothesis that Romanian differs from English/French in
the internal structure of IP constituents. If the proposed suggestions are on the right
track we may try to inquire further:
(86)
a. Can we provide a cross-linguistic definition of the notion of auxiliary

which would subsume the definitions of Romanian and French/English
auxiliaries?
b. Is this definition notional in the sense that it defines a universal feature for
auxiliaries?
31
1.5. 1. IP structure and auxiliaries

Let us consider two types of languages, characterized respectively by the types of
IP constituents in (87) and (88). According to Sportiche (1988), die configuration
in (87) is the underlying sentence structure for English and French. (88) and (87)
are alike with respect to the base position of the NP subject, generated in a VPinternal position; 42 but they differ with respect to the S-structure position of the
subject: in (87) the subject NP necessarily raises to (Spec, IP), whereas in (88) it
stays in the position in which it has been generated. In order to bring out this
difference, I have represented the structural level at which it can be observed (i.e.,
after V movement to Infi and after NP S movement to (Spec, IP)).
(87)
EPV
NPS
X
V-Infl
VP
i ^ v
tv
(88)
NPr
m
l
V-Infl
VP
NP S
V'
tV
NP 0
In (87) and (88) Sportiche's Vmax has been replaced by VP, and correlatively VP
by V'; the internal subject stands under (Spec, VP). These alterations are needed if
we want to assume a consistent X'-theory of the type proposed in Chomsky
(1986)b).
Let us now consider the (Spec, IP) position, which clearly has a different status
in (87) and (88). In (87) (Spec, IP) is necessarily present, because the subject
cannot survive in its base position (presumably because it cannot be assigned Case
there, but the precise reason is of no consequence here); in this case (Spec, IP) is an
-position, the canonical structural position of the subject.
Compare (88): the (Spec, IP) position has not been represented here, because it
is an optional A'-position (the site characteristic of topicalizations and left
42
This hypothesis can be found (with certain technical variations, which concern (a) the categorial
status of the node that dominates [NP VP] and (b) the languages for which this hypothesis holds)
in Kuroda (1986); Contreras (1987); Kitagawa (1986); Fukui and Speas (1986); Speas (1986);
Sportiche (1988); Zagona (1988); and Dobrovie-Sorin (1987).
dislocations), which is accessible to subjects and non-subjects alike; the canonical

-position of subjects is (Spec, VP).
Beyond the similarity concerning the base position of the subject, the structures
in (87) and (88) thus appear to be fundamentally different, and it is their difference,
rather than their similarity, that is relevant here. Let us indeed consider the
corresponding auxiliary configurations. The structures in (9)a-b, repeated under
(89), are currently assumed for the languages characterized by (87), that is for S-VO languages; (89)a corresponds to English modals and (89)b to the English have
and to the French etre/ avoir:
(89)
a. [ipNPs [] [i Aux] [Vp t s [y V NP 0 ]]]

i
I
b. [ I P N P S [rJUuxpAux] [ V P ts [ V NP 0 ]]]
'
Note that a somewhat more complicated version of (89)b could be assumed, with a
specifier position for AuxP, which would constitute an intermediary step for the
NP movement from the Spec position of VP to the Spec position of IP:
(89') b
[ipNP s [rI[AuxptsAux[vpt s [v'VNP 0 ]]]

t
itl
The difference between (89)b and (89')b is irrelevant here, because what interests
us is the way in which auxiliary constructions satisfy the Tense filter, and I assume
that NP-traces are not visible for the relations on which Tense-indexing depends.
Let us now turn to V-initial languages, characterized by the structure in (88): in
such a language the NP subject does not raise to (Spec, IP) but stays in its base
generated position, as in (90):
(90)
[ IP I UuxpAux [vp NPs [ V NP 0 ]]]

i
1. 5. 2. Auxiliary configurations and the Tense filter

Let us now see how (89)a-b and (90) could satisfy the Tense filter, a licensing
condition on verbs. The formulation in (91) is inspired, but not identical to those
proposed by Fabb (1984) and Roberts (1985)):
(91)
a. A verb must be Tense-indexed.

b. V is Tense-indexed if (i) V incorporates to Infi or (ii) V is Tense-marked
(th-governed by Infi) and the V' projection is a sister of Infi.
The Tense filter is the verbal counterpart of the Case filter, the visibility condition
on nominals. The two ways in which the Tense filter can be satisfied, namely by
incorporation or by government are parallel to the two ways in which nominals can
satisfy the Case filter: clitic pronominals incoiporate into the head bearing the Case
feature, whereas full NPs are assigned a Case feature under government by the
head bearing the Case feature (see Baker (1988); Baker, Johnson and Roberts
(1989)).
Both auxiliaries and lexical verbs must satisfy the Tense filter. Consider first
(89)a-b: in (89)a the auxiliary is Tense-indexed because it is base-generated in the
Infi position; in (89)b the auxiliary satisfies the Tense-filter by incorporating to Infi
(see (91)b(i)), via V-to-I movement. As to the lexical verb itself, it is licensed via
Tense-marking (see (91)b(ii)): in both (89)a and (89)b the auxiliary raised to Infi
th-governs V'; the sisterhood condition is satisfied if we assume that neither NPtraces nor V-traces are visible for Tense-indexing.
Let me stress that it is not the auxiliary itself that Tense-marks VP (and indirectly
its V head); as stated in (72), auxiliaries do not th-mark (and therefore they do not
Tense-mark) their VP complement. It is only Infi that is a Tense-marker: in (89)a-b
the auxiliary Tense-marks only because it occupies the Infi position.43
Turning now to (90), it is easy to see that this configuration violates the Tense
filter: the NP subject intervenes between (the auxiliary raised to) Infi and V', in
violation of the sisterhood condition in (91)b (ii) 4 4 The problem cannot be solved
by inserting the auxiliary lower, i.e., inside VP, just above V', as in (92). Since it is
only by raising to Infi that the auxiliary can license the lexical verb, the sisterhood
condition is still violated after Aux-to-I raising:45
(92)
0[IPI [ VP NPS [Aux, Aux [ v . V NP 0 ]]]

..
To sum up, a correlation appears to hold between IP types and types of auxiliaries:
because of the Tense-filter, Aux VP configurations are ruled out in V-initial
langugages characterized by (88). If this correlation is correct, a tentative answer to
(83) could be that Romanian IP constituents are of the type in (88).
1. 5. 3. The licensing of verbs embedded under modals
Consider next the configuration in (93), which was shown to characterize a putea
'may, can':
(93)
[ipot] [v*pt p o t [VPV...]]
From the structural point of view (93) is identical to the configuration characteristic
of type (A)b auxiliaries, and it has just been shown that this configuration is
43 A
still different case is that in (i):

(i)
He will ha ve gone home
Here we must assume that the modal will, which is Tense-marked, is able to transfer the Tense
feature to have , which in turn transfers it to gone. This transfer can be viewed as a particular case
of Tense-marking.
" I n Would John write such a letter? the filter is satisfied because the trace of Infi is adjacent to
V'; as to the relation between the trace of Infi and the Infi raised to C, this relation is not
constrained by adjacency (antecedent government, not head government).
45
The same difficulties arise if we assume Aux to be directly generated under Infi.
illegitimate in a language characterized by (88). Why then is this same structure

allowed with modals? The problem reduces to a contrast between auxiliaries and
modals, which are currently assumed to differ in their L-marking properties:
modals, but not (functional) auxiliaries L-mark their VP complement (see Chomsky
(1986)b, Lema and Rivero (1989, 1990)) among many others). The Tense filter
could then be satisfied in (93) via L-marking by a Tense-marked verb. We must
then add this possibility to the Tense-filter, (91)a now becomes (94):
(94) A verb must be Tense-indexed or L-marked by a Tense-marked V.
I provisionally conclude here that a possible line of inquiry for answering (84)
relies on the assumption stated in the second part of the disjunction in (94). It is
clear that further research is necessary in order to support this restatement of the
Tense-filter.
1. 5. 4. "Biclausal" tenses
Let us finally turn to question (85). The abstract structure in (95), which was
shown to underlie Romanian auxiliary constructions, is straightforwardly predicted
to be impossible in French or English, where Nominative Case cannot be assigned
under government; hence the postverbal NP subject violates the Case filter:
(95)
Aux [CP [C V+I] [IP t V +I [VPNP [V W ]]]]
As to why (95) cannot be saved by raising the NP subject to the pre-auxiliary

position, we must say that the assignment of Nominative Case under Spec-Head
agreement cannot apply in (95). A possible reason might be the fact that the head is
a complex element (Aux V-I, obtained through merging), which as such cannot
enter into a Spec-Head agreement relation. The auxiliary itself cannot count as the
relevant head, possibly because it has not raised to Infi.
A last note is in order concerning the grammaticality of (95) in V-initial
languages. The assignment of Nominative Case obviously creates no problem here,
as the assignment of Nominative case under government is the defining property of
V-initial languages. What we have to check is whether the Tense filter is satisfied:
the lexical verb is licensed via incorporation with Infi and redundantly it is also
governed by the auxiliary. Since the auxiliary itself entertains none of the
designated relations with Infi, we should assume that Functional coindexation with
Infi (see (38)) is sufficient, and could be viewed as a kind of incorporation.
1. 5. 5. Towards a definition of auxiliaries
To conclude, I would like to speculate on the notion of auxiliary. The thematic
properties of auxiliaries stated in (A)a are presumably universal. There is however
no universal structural definition of auxiliaries. They may be non-existent, or their
structure may differ from one language to another, as a function of the type of IPconstituents. This correlation appears to be due to the Tense filter: a given auxiliary
structure is allowed provided both the auxiliary and the lexical verb satisfy the
Tense filter.
41
1. 6. The perfect auxiliary fi 'be'

Our discussion of Romanian auxiliaries has left aside the invariable verb fi 'be'
(distinct from the passive auxiliary a fi 'to be'), which is used as a marker of perfect
aspect. To facilitate comprehension of the examples we will translate perfect G by
'have', but the reader should bear in mind that the litteral translation is be; thus, the
Romanian paradigms illustrated in (96), built with invariable fi, are totally distinct
from the "perfectul compus", built with am/ai/a ...'have' (followed by the past
participle):
(96)
a. inainte de a-i fi tiimis mama
cartea,...
before of a -him have sent mother the book, ...

'before mother had sent him the book,...
b. Nu cred s fi spus Ion aa
ceva.
[I do] not believe s have said John such a thing

don't believe John to have said such a thing.'
c. Va fi terminat
lecfia.
[he/she] will have finished the lesson

d . Ar fi terminat
lecfia.
[he/she] would have finished the lesson

The main problem raised by this data is an explanation of the alternation between fi
and am/ai/a..., which contrasts with all the other Romance (and Germanic)
languages: (a) why do the paradigms in (96) preclude the use of am/ai/a...; (b)
conversely, why is fi impossible in the present perfect; (c) why is fi invariable?
In order to answer these questions we will first try to assign a structural
representation to (96)a-d, and then compare it with that already established for the
present perfect. Given (96)c-d we may be tempted to assume that fi adjoins to CP,
because future and conditional auxiliaries take CP complements whose C position
is filled by the preposed verb; since in (96)c-d fi comes in front of the lexical verb,
we may assume that it adjoins to CP, as do the other Romanian auxiliaries. But this
hypothesis is problematic given (96)a-b, since a and s are under Comp, and they
normally take a V-initial IP (see Chapters 3 and 4 below) constituent; therefore, in
(96)a-b, fi should be assumed to adjoin to IP rather than CP. We thus reach the
undesirable conclusion that fi occupies different positions in (96)a-b and (96)c-d.
We might of course assume that in (96)a-b fi adjoins to CP, but then we must
assume that a and s may take either CP or IP complements, which is also
unsatisfactory.
The problem can be solved if we take into account the data in (97):
(97)
a. Ion ar mai fi scris dac 1-ai fi lsat
John would more have written if [you] had let him

b. *Ion ar fi mai scris
46
,..46
This ungrammaticality is very clear in contemporary standard Romanian. Note, however, that
examples of this type can be found in the spoken language, and are also found in the literature of
the beginning of the century (see Bredemeier 1976, pp 56-58). The data is more complicated for
c. Ion ar mai
scrie.
John would more write

In the preceding sections it has been demonstrated that the only structural
configuration that can be assigned to (97)c is one in which the clitic adverb mai
adjoins to Infi, and consequently mai is string-adjacent to the inflected verb at Sstructure (after the application of V-to-Infl). This hypothesis explains why clitic
adverbs are taken along by the rule of (V-)Infl to Comp, which strands pronominal
clitics (because they adjoin to I'/IP, and not to Infi). This analysis of adverbial
clitics, together with the idea that fi, like the other auxiliaries, adjoins to CP (or
possibly to IP), predict that example (97)b should be grammatical, contrary to fact.
(97)a is the only grammatical example, and this gives us a crucial clue concerning
the structural position of fi. If we want to maintain that in (97)a mai occupies the
same structural position as in (97)c, the only structural possibility is that in (98),
where fi adjoins to Infi:
(98)
IP
I
^VP
mai
NPS
fi
V-I
V
V
NP 0
tv
It is not certain whether multiple adjunctions to X heads (and to I in particular)

should be allowed by our grammar. We may avoid this problem by saying that fi is
not strictly speaking adjoined to I, but rather it forms a discontinous morpheme
with the past participle inflection; in other words, the sequence fi ...-pastparticiple
would not be dominated by two distinct categories (say V and I), but just by one
category, Infi, which dominates a discontinous morpheme specified as "bare perfect
infinitive". The structures built with fi are thus fundamentally different from those
built with perfect auxiliaries in the other Romance languages. In the latter case the
perfect auxiliary encodes the information "perfect", and it combines in the syntax
with infinitive, subjunctive, future or conditional inflections in order to convey
complex information such as "perfect infinitive/ subjunctive, etc." Compare
Romanian, where "perfect infinitive" ( f i ...-pastparticiple)
and "perfect" (am/ai/
a...) are independently listed in the lexicon, and directly inserted in the syntax under
the Infi node.47 We cannot say that in (96)a-b fi is inflected for the infinitive and the
subjunctive respectively - these examples (as well as the perfect future and the
the other clitic adverbs, which may appear either in front or after fi, and no clear generalization
seems to hold.
is clear that there is more to say concerning discontinuous morphemes. Our analysis seems in
particular to invalidate a generalization that we have assumed above, according to which
inflectional morphemes are necessarily suffixes (in Romanian, at least): fi looks much like a
prefix. However, on a closer look, the morphologically subcategorized position is the one under I,
which is a suffix.

perfect conditional) rely on the presence of a perfect infinitive ( f i ...-past part)
preceded by a/ sot or by auxiliaries.
Let us now be more precise about the underlying representations of (96)a-d.
Examples (96)a-b are straightforward: a and s are under Comp and they take an IP
constituent of the form given in (98) (for the sake of simplicity w e have disregarded
pronominal clitics, which w e shall discuss in detail in Chapter 2). A s for examples
(96)c-d, the future and conditional auxiliaries take CP complements, w h i c h
dominate a Comp position which is a sister of the IP given in (98). B y the rule of
M o v e (V-)Infl to Comp, which obligatorily applies in (96)c-d, just as it does in
(97)c), the string mai fi V i s moved to Comp, and pronominal clitics are left behind,
as in the one-auxiliary configurations examined in the previous sections. This
explains why the position of pronominal clitics in configurations of the type in (96)
is exactly the same as in one-auxiliary sequences: 'her' is postverbal, whereas the
other pronominal clitics o c c u p y the pre-auxiliary position, as a result o f a
phonological rule. 4 8
Our analysis of the examples in (96)a-d predicts the following data:
(99)
a. Ion poate [ypajunge dintr-o clip in alta],

John may arrive from one moment to another
^^Note however that within this analysis, the position of 'her' is somewhat surprising in (i)(iii):
(i)
inainte de a fi trimis-o mama,...
before of a have sent-it mother,...
'before mother had sent-it,...'
(ii) Nu cred s fi spus-o Ion.
[I do] not believe s i be said John
don't believe John to have said such a thing.'
(iii) inainte de a trimite-o mama
before of to send-it mother
This problem arises not only for two-auxiliary constructions, but also for one-auxiliary structures
(see (iii)), and therefore it is not our analysis of fi which is at stake, but rather our analysis of
cliticization in auxiliary structures in general. In neither a infinitives or s subjunctives does (V)Infl to Comp apply, and this is the only syntactic rule that gives rise to postverbal clitics (see
Chapter 2). The difficulty raised by (i)-(iii) is less important than it appears at first sight; the
position of illustrated in (i)-(iii) is in fact not obligatory, only optional:
(iv) Inainte de a fi trimis mama,...
(v) nu cred s-o fi spus Ion
(vi) Inainte de a trimite mama
Given (iv)-(vi), we are not obliged to assume that the position of in (i)-(iii) is the one that this
clitic occupies in conditional and "perfectul compus" configurations, since in all these structures
is necessarily postverbal. We may instead assume that the syntactic position of is the one in
(iv)-(vi), which is consistent with our analysis of infinitives and subjunctives, and with our
hypothesis concerning '; the postverbal position in (i)-(iii) would be the result of a phonological
rule. Note that this rule is sensitive to the presence of AGR features on the subjunctive. Thus, (i)(vi) show that is compatible with either the pre-auxiliary or the postverbal position in perfect
subjunctives and both present and perfect infinitives. But present subjunctives, which are inflected
for AGR, as opposed to perfect subjunctives, do not allow postverbal o.
(vii) *s vd-o
s [I] see-her
b. *Ion poate [VP/ ajuns ien]. 49

John may be/have arrived yesterday
c. Ion poate [ypfi pclit u$or].
John can be fooled easily
In Section 1.3.1. it has been established that bare infinitives embedded under a
putea 'may, can' should be analyzed as VPs. This hypothesis, together with the idea
that fi...-en is generated under I, explains the impossibility of (99)b: fi...-en cannot
be generated, since there is no I node lower than poate, compare the English gloss.
The grammaticality of (99)c is expected, because in this case the verb be is a
passive auxiliary, which behaves morphologically and syntactically as a lexical verb
(Romanian passives are comparable to adjectival constructions). Therefore, in (99)c
fi can be base generated in the V position of the embedded VP.
We shall now turn to a very <xld characteristic of perfect subjunctives: they are
invariable, i.e., they do not bear AGR features, as opposed to present subjunctives.
This impossibility might be due to the fact that fi is part of a lexical constituent, the
discontinuous "perfect infinitive" morpheme, made up of the invariable past
participle and of fi. Since it is part of a lexical constituent, fi is not accessible to any
rule of syntax (by the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis), and in particular AGR cannot
adjoin to it. Consider for comparison the present subjunctive, where the I node
dominates present tense inflections which are monomorphemic and therefore
allowed to combine with AGR in the syntax.
The question is now why should perfect subjunctives be constructed with fi ...en, rather than with a perfect auxiliary that would take subjunctive inflections,
followed by a lexical verb in the infinitive, as is the case in the other Romance and
in Germanic languages. This question has already been answered in the preceding
sections: the only auxiliaries that are allowed in Romanian adjoin to CP/IP
complements headed by the verb moved to C. We have shown why these
auxiliaries are not allowed to move to Infi. This explains why the perfect auxiliary
cannot take either Tense inflections (note the absence of a past participle paradigm
constructed with the perfect auxiliary) or subjunctive inflections.
The general impossibility of Aux VP sequences in Romanian can also be
observed in future and conditional paradigms, which do not display (compare again
other languages) a perfect auxiliary (followed by a participial VP) embedded under
conditional and future auxiliaries. According to our analysis examples (96)c-d are
constructed with future/ conditional auxiliaries followed by a CP/IP headed by an
Infi node that dominates the perfect infinitive morpheme fi ...-en. We still have to
understand the impossibility of examples such as (100), which suppose multiple
adjunction to CP/IP, as shown in (101):
(100) a. *ai aveaplecat
(you) would have left
b. *veiaveaplecat
(you) will have left
4 9 T h e meaning of this impossible example (see the English gloss) can be conveyed by an
embedded subjunctive: Ion poate s fi ajuns ieri, where fi occupies the same position as in (96)b.
(101) C P / I P ^
Auxi
CP/IP
I \
AUX2 CP/IP
I
C
\
IP
I
V- Infi
...
In order to rule (101) out we may assume that adjunction to CP/IP is not recursive.
Therefore, a language that has at its disposal only auxiliaries that adjoin to CP/IP
cannot present AuxP constituents embedded under another Aux. Compare
auxiliaries that govern VP complements, for example, in Romance languages other
than Romanian: they allow embedded auxiliaries.
To sum up, we have provided the following answers to the questions posed at
the beginning of this section: (a) am/ai/a... cannot be used in (96) a-b, because this
auxiliary cannot move to Infi; it cannot be used in (96)c-d either, because it cannot
be embedded under another auxiliary; (b) conversely, fi is impossible in the present
perfect, because fi is part of a larger morpheme that encodes the information
"perfect infinitive"; this also explains (c) why fi is invariable. The necessary
alternation between two perfect auxiliaries (one for the present perfect/"perfectul
compus", and the other for the paradigms in (96)) 50 is thus the only possibility
available for a language that presents only auxiliaries that adjoin to CPAP. Note that
the term "auxiliary", which we have used for convenience, is inadequate for fi,
which is just part of a bound morpheme, and therefore does not fall under the
definition of auxiliaries given in (B).
Conclusions
It has been shown that type (A)b auxiliaries cannot exist in V-initial languages;
insofar as these languages present any auxiliaries at all, these are type (B)
auxiliaries. Given these correlations, the fact that Romanian presents type (B)
auxiliaries and no (A)b auxiliary may be used as indirect evidence in favour of the
idea that Romanian IP constituents are V-initial.51
The structure proposed here for Romanian auxiliaries has in common with type
(A)b auxiliaries the hypothesis that auxiliaries are external to the VP with which
they are associated (this idea goes back to Chomsky (1955) and has been
reformulated by Jackendoff (1972), Emonds (1976), Culicover (1976), Akmajian
and Wasow (1975), Akmajian, Steele and Wasow (1979)). We have reached an
extreme variant of this hypothesis, which brings to mind Ross's (1970) hypothesis
of auxiliaries as main verbs: Romanian auxiliaries are sisters of CP/IP constituents.
50
This analysis does not explain why it is am/ai/a.. which adjoins to CP, and fi which adjoins
to Infi and not vice versa. We leave this open.
51
Note that the reverse does not hold: a language may present auxiliary clitics even if it is not a
V-initial language. In this case auxiliary clitics could adjoin to IP.
The VP-external hypothesis is not the only theoretical possibility. We may

indeed recall Emonds's (1978) proposal that French auxiliaries form a "verbal
complex" with the lexical verb, as shown in (102):
(102) a. V P - . . . V ' . . .
b.
-
\
V
V
laves
I
6te
avons
Another possibility would be to assume that V' is a flat constituent, i.e., the lexical
verb and the preceding auxiliaries would be sisters to each other.
A hypothesis along these lines seems at first sight adequate for Romanian: it
directly captures the strong coherence that exists between auxiliaries and lexical
verbs; it could in fact be claimed that the evidence in favour of generalized Vraising on the one hand and in favour of the absence of subject-Aux inversion on
the other constitutes evidence in favour of the constituenthood of the Aux-V string.
Such a hypothesis is close to the current analysis of Romanian auxiliaries adopted
by the Romanian structuralist school; see in particular Gu{u-Romalo (1962) and
Avram (1988), who reach the conclusion that Romanian "auxiliaries are not verbs,
but grammatical morphemes". The VP-external analysis presented above seems at
first sight incompatible with the "affixal" (more precisely "clitic") status of
Romanian auxiliaries. In Chapter 2 it will be shown that the proposed configuration
does in fact account for the clitic status of Romanian auxiliaries. It is also important
to note that even if Romanian auxiliaries were affixes (which is, as a matter of fact
incorrect), we would not be obliged to assume that at D-structure they form a
constituent with the verb: under the current analysis of IP constituents, inflectional
affixes are not base generated on the verb, but under Infi, which takes VP as a
complement. This is however a theory-internal assumption.
Let me then stress again that the foregoing analysis, relying on the VP-external
hypothesis, is empirically superior to the competing V-complex analysis by
correctly accounting for the following properties: (a) the affix-like behaviour of
Romanian auxiliaries can also be observed with the future paradigms which are
clearly "biclausal", in the sense explicated in Section 1.2.1. It is clear that am s plec
/ai s pleci 'have-1st sing that leave-1st sing/ have that 2nd sing that leave2nd sing' are frozen sequences, on a par with the other Aux-V sequences, but in
this case it is clear that am/ai/are
cannot be analyzed as being intrinsically either
affixes or clitics (the clitic/non-clitic status of am/ai/a depends on the configurations
in which it appears). Moreover, the AGR features on the lexical verb, as well as the
presence of s and the distribution of clitics clearly indicate that these configurations
present an embedded CP/IP constituent; (b) the distribution of the feminine
pronominal clitic o, and that of clitic adverbs (see Chapter 2); (c) the existence of
inverted conjugations such as V Aux ty (see Section 1.4. above).
47
In the next chapter it will be shown that the analysis proposed here is compatible
with the clitic status of Romanian auxiliaries.
Appendix
This remark concerns participial constructions in S-V-0 languages. It has been
recently proposed (see Kayne (1987); Baker, Johnson and Roberts (1989)) that the
participial inflection -en in English (see -6 in French) is generated under an Infi
node which takes VP as a complement. Therefore, we end up with biclausal
configurations for passives and present perfect constructions: the auxiliary verbs
have and be move to the upper Infi node, and the lexical verb is related to its own
Infi node,52 as in (103).
(103)
IP
I
NPS
AuxP
i \
NPS Aux'
Aux
IP53
I
VP
NPs
v:
NPn
The question is then in what way the lexical verb takes the participial inflection; this
can be done either by Affix Hopping or by V-to-I movement. The former option is
the only one available in English; both options may be postulated for French. There
is however one argument in favour of the idea that the participial inflection is
subject to Affix Hopping rather than a triggerer of V-to-I: pronominal clitics cannot
adjoin to the past participle itself, but only to the auxiliary verb (je l'ai mang6 avec
plaisir "I it-have eaten with pleasure'; compare *j'ai le mang6avecplaisir). The GB
52niis hypothesis is interesting insofar as it leads to a very neat system: every verb is generated
inside a VP,which is governed by an Infi node (this generalization could be stated as a visibility
principle on verbs, but note that such a principle would be stronger than the one proposed in
Roberts (1985)). No VP constituent is directly dominated by another verb, auxiliary or not.
English modals do not constitute an exception: since they are generated under Infi, they are
allowed to take VP complements. Compare have, which is generated outside Infi, and
correlatively takes an IP complement.
53 I t is not clear that a (Spec, IP) node is projected here. If it is, the subject NP goes through this
position on its ascendent movement, but cannot stay there because of the condition on auxiliaries.
theory of clitics is not sufficiently clear, but there is much convergent evidence in
favour of the idea that clitics adjoin to Infi (see Chapter 2). This condition must be
strengthened if we want to capture the distribution of clitics in French auxiliary
constructions: Infi can be a host for clitics only if Infi triggers V-raising. This
hypothesis captures correctly the Romanian data: in this language the participial
inflection does trigger V-raising, and correlatively it serves as a host for clitics.
Note also that the absence of clitics in English might be related to the fact that in this
language V-to-I is limited to auxiliaries.
These remarks are only a suggestion, and do not entitle us totally to exclude the
idea that in French, V-to-I may apply towards the past participle inflection. It thus
appears that the three properties of Romanian auxiliaries presented in Section 1.1.
do not necessarily cluster together: the raising of the lexical verb out of VP may be
allowed in French, 54 without any constraint on the auxiliary itself, which is free to
move to the upper Infi node (hence subject-auxiliary inversion, and Tense
inflections on the auxiliary). In Romanian on the other hand, the auxiliary cannot
move to Infi (hence no subject-auxiliary inversion, 55 and no Tense inflection on
auxiliaries).
certain pro-drop Romance languages, such as Spanish, this rule seems to be obligatory: thus,
in Spanish, neither adverbs nor floating quantifiers are allowed to intervene between auxiliaries
and lexical verbs.
5%
our hypothesis concerning the sentence structure of Romanian is correct, the example in (31)a
is not necessarily obtained by V-second: V-to-Infl raising suffices to explain the order V NP S ,
since the subject occupies a sister position to VP, that the verb necessarily bypasses on its way to
Infi; V-second, i.e., "Move (V-)Infl to Comp" may be at work in (31)a, but if it is, it applies
vacuously (if we leave aside [Spec, IP], which is an A'-position, Comp is adjacent to Infi. The
example in (31)b is also directly obtained in the representation in (45')b, where V raises to Infi
bypassing NPS
2. Clitic Placement and the rule of Move I-to-C
In Chapter 1, the distribution of pronominal clitics, and in particular the sequences

characterized by the V-cl order, was used as evidence in favour of the analysis of
auxiliary structures proposed there. This argument stands only if it can be shown
that the proposed analysis of cliticization in auxiliary constructions does not rely on
particular stipulations, but follows instead from the principles that govern
cliticization in general. This task will be undertaken in the present chapter, llie first
section will be devoted to the theory of cliticization, which will be illustrated with
French examples. In Section 2.2., this theory will be shown to be supported by
Romanian data. In Section 2.4., it will be shown that the distribution of clitics in
Romanian auxiliary constructions is predicted by the general theory of cliticization
if we assume the underlying structure of auxiliary sequences proposed in Chapter
1. The main disadvantages of alternative proposals will be pointed out.
2. 1. Cliticization in Romance languages

The notion of clitic may be viewed as a morphological specification, on a par with
"affix", "root", "word", but distinct from all these types of elements. Correlatively,
clitic-host constituents should be kept distinct from "words", even if they show
certain word-like properties. As is well-known, two types of clitics should be
distinguished. Zwicky's (1977) "simple" clitics, referred to as "phonological" clitics
below, are "prosodically deficient" items which necessarily incorporate with
adjacent elements (see Marantz (1988)); nothing special need be said about their
syntax, since they occupy the syntactic position characteristic of non-clitic elements
of the same lexical category: see's and is in English. "Syntactic" clitics (Zwicky's
"special" clitics) are those clitics which display a distinctive syntax: their
distribution does not depend on the general principles of syntax, but seems to
depend on rules, called clitic placement, which are specific to them, as opposed to
non-clitics of the same lexical category (see in particular the complementary
distribution that characterizes "strong" and "clitic" pronouns in Romance
languages). The Romanian data examined below will show that the notions of
"syntactic" and "phonological" clitics are not exclusive of each other, but neither do
they imply each other: a given element can be either a syntactic or a phonological
clitic, or both. Our main interest will be in syntactic clitics, which will be referred to
as "clitics" by abbreviation; phonological clitics will be explicitly mentioned.
From the descriptive point of view, several types of syntactic clitics have been
established (Klavans (1980, 1985); Kaisse (1985); Sadock (1991)) on the basis of
their characteristic position: initial, final, second-position, penultimate position, prehead and post-head clitics. It is not clear whether one common characteristic might
be shown to underlie this very dissimilar distribution. This fundamental question is
out of the scope of the present discussion. I will examine only the type of clitics
found in modern Romance languages, namely pre- and post-head clitics (more
precisely, pre- and post-verbal clitics),1 which will be shown to be related to each
other via a rule that preposes the verb.
The main theoretical problem raised by clitic elements is the relation between
syntax and the lexicon. Any analysis of clitics must reconcile their morphophonological properties (the fact that the clitic and its host make up a very coherent
element, which looks much like a word) with their syntactic characteristics
(pronominal clitics, for instance, satisfy subcategorization requirements of verbs).
Two main distinct approaches have been adopted: (a) according to a syntactic
theory of clitics (Kayne (1975)), the clitic is generated by the rules of syntax in a
standard syntactic position from which it is moved via an obligatory rule of clitic
placement and adjoined to V; (b) according to the morphological theory of clitics
(see Borer (1984)), the complex [clitic + verb] is a lexical item formed by the word
formation rules of the Lexicon and directly inserted into the syntactic structure (the
phrasemarker obtained by the application of base rules). The difference between the
two approaches can be viewed as relying on a derivational as opposed to a
representational framework: thus the S-structure configurations are indeed identical
(at least in the rough presentation given here) in Kayne's and Borer's analyses:
(1)
VP
I
\
V
NP
I
I
cli+V
ej
The two analyses differ with respect to the postulated D-structure: for Kayne
(1975) the position occupied by ei is occupied by the clitic at D-structure, whereas
for Borer the relation between the clitic and ei is purely representational. The
representational as opposed to the derivational approach correlates here with a
difference between a morphological as opposed to a syntactic approach of
cliticization because of the particular type of S-structure configuration, namely a
complex X element - the sequence [ycl+V] - made up of two distinct components.
Underlying Borer's analysis is the strong Lexicalist Hypothesis, according to which
X constitutents can only be formed in the Lexicon; this view is compatible solely
with the representational approach.
2. 1. 1. Clitic Placement as adjunction to Infi
This strong version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis is not unanimously accepted,
however, consider for instance the current analysis of verbal inflection: die verb and
its agreement+tense affixes form an X element which is assumed to be derived via
a syntactic rule, V-to-Infl raising (the verbal root is generated under V, the
agreement and tense morphemes under Infi - or, according to Pollock (1989), under
two distinct functional heads). Given this current analysis, it is plausible to assume
an analogous rule for clitic placement. To be more precise we can refer to Roberts's
(1991) typology of incorporation processes, which distinguishes three types of
iNP-internal clitics are outside the scope of the present discussion.
Clitic Placement and the rule of Move I-to-C 51
Head-to-Head movement: (a) V-to-Infl is an instance of incorporation by

substitution into a morphologically subcategorized position. According to Lieber
(1980,1983) affixes subcategorize morphologically, i.e., they select a V, N, or Adj
position that must be filled by an element of the relevant category; thus, tense
/agreement morphemes would subcategorize a V position. Roberts (1985),
followed by Rizzi and Roberts (1989), proposes the hypothesis that Lieber's
morphologically subcategorized positions may serve as the landing site of syntactic
rules such as V-to-Infl; (b) cliticization relies on incorporation by adjunction of one
head to another, (c) the Infl-to-Comp movement is an instance of substitution into
an empty head position (this hypothesis goes back to den Besten's (1977, 1983)
analysis of V-second in Germanic languages).
Rules (a) and (c), which were already used in chapter 1, will be assumed without
further discussion. The difference between (a) and (b) is meant to capture the
difference between affixes and clitics, which have sometimes been incorrectly
assimilated to each other.2 Much of the data examined below relate to reorderings
of clitic clusters, which contrast sharply with the fixed position characteristic of
affixes: the element AGR, for instance, is a suffix on the verb and no reordering is
possible. This comparison between AGR and pronominal clitics is relevant because
the affix, as opposed to clitic status, is the only difference that separates these
elements in pro-drop Romance languages. Their thematic and categorial properties
are the same: they presumably bear th-roles (or belong to a chain which bears one)
and they are both nominal elements, and therefore must be assigned Case (see
Aoun (1981); Jaeggli (1982)). The fixed position of affixes, as opposed to the
relative freedom that clitics display with respect to their hosts, is correctly captured
by the hypothesis in (a); once V moves into the morphologically subcategorized
slot of Infl, the resulting element has the category Infi, and the category V will be
invisible for any subsequent rule. Clitics, on the other hand, do not subcategorize
morphologically, and correlatively they are not subject to the type of incorporation
defined in (a). Roberts proposes that they incorporate by adjunction to a head. The
analysis of Clitic Placement as incorporation by adjunction to a head is an update of
Kayne's (1975) proposal, within the recent theory of Head to Head movement
(Baker (1988); Travis (1984)).
Another revision of Kayne's original analysis concerns the host of the clitic.
Many authors (see in particular Belletti (1982); Koopman (1984); Rochette (1988))
observe that the verbs that do not move to Infi cannot serve as hosts for clitics. This
impossibility strongly suggests that clitics adjoin to Infi, and only indirectly to V
(as a result of V-to-Infl); in structures where V stays under VP it cannot serve as a
host for clitics. The relevant part of (2) would then rely on the configuration in (3):
(2)
Jean le connait
John him knows
'John knows him'
For a detailed discussion of the differences between clitics and affixes see Zwicky and Pullum
(1982).
le
connsSt
Consider now the order V-cl that characterizes positive imperatives in all Romance
languages, as well as Italian infinitivals, Romanian gerunds and certain
subjunctives, etc.; I give French examples, but the same data can be found in Italian,
Spanish, Romanian:
(4)
a. aide-le
b. *n'aide-le pas
c. nel'aidepas.
The first problem to be solved is whether the relative position of the clitic and the
verb that can be observed in (4)a - as opposed to (2) - is due to a rule of Vpreposing or to a rule of clitic postposing.3 Since downgrading rules are marginal,
if not altogether absent, it is reasonable to assume the first alternative (which fares
better on many other grounds, which I will not review here). This hypothesis,
which goes back to den Besten (1977, 1983), can be found in Rivero (1988a; to
appear), Kayne (1991), Roberts (1991): the clitic inversion characteristic of
Romance imperatives (see (4)a) is due to the rule of Move (V-)Infl to Comp4 (this
is an updated restatement of den Besten's formulation, which takes into account the
current hypothesis concerning the structure of IP constituents, and the Head to
Head Constraint).
Given the structure in (3), the sequence V-cl characteristic of (4)a would be
derived as in (5):
3For still another possibility see Rouveret (1989), who assumes that enclitic pronouns are not
transformationally related to proclitic pronouns.
4
F o r Kayne (1991) the landing site of the preposed verb may be other than Comp. This
assumption is meant to capture the fact that in Italian infinitives postverbal clitics coexist with a
lexical element that is probably dominated by Comp.
Clitic Placement and the rule of Move I-to-C
(5)
53
CP
IP
-I
clj V-I
f t
VP
V
NP
tv
ej
regarde le
The problem with this analysis is that it relies on an "excorporation" process: in
order to bypass the clitic, the sequence V-I has to move out of an incorporated
sequence, cl-V-I. Within Baker's (1988) theory, excorporation is banned by a
lexicalist principle which rules out words that contain traces (due to incorporation
the sequence cl-V-I is a word; by moving V-I out of it we would obtain another
word which contains a trace: cl-tv-l) Another way of banning excorporation is by
invoking an ECP violation (see Roberts (1991), among others): the trace of the
moved inflected verb is not antecedent governed because of the intervening clitic.
2. 1.2. Clitic Placement as adjunction to IP
It is, of course, possible to devise various assumptions and mechanisms which will
have the effect of allowing excorporation for incorporation by adjunction and ruling
it out only for incorporation by substitution into a morphologically subcategorized
head (see in particular Roberts (1991)). But this kind of theory will not really solve
the excorporation problem, which is, in fact, one aspect of a more general problem:
by applying Move (V)-I we are bound to move the whole sequence [i n fl cl V-Infl]
because the only visible I node is the highest one (by the A-over-A principle, or
whatever restatement of it that we may want to adopt). In order to leave behind the
clitic, we must stipulate that Move I applies to a lower I node, the one that
dominates V-I.
In what follows, I will propose a theory of cliticization which does not rely on
excorporation. 5 My main hypothesis will be that cliticization relies on IPadjunction:
5
Another proposal that avoids excorporation can be found in Kayne (1991), who assumes that Vcl sequences rely on configurations of the type in (i):
(i)
...V ... Cl+I ,..[ V p[ve]....]
(i) is like (5) insofar as the clitic has adjoined to I; (i) differs from (5) in that the verb does not
move first to I and then further on, but directly to the upper position, which according to Kayne
is an I-adjoined position. According to this analysis, the V movement that gives rise to
postverbal clitics does not obey the structure preservation condition, which is maintained under
my own analysis.
(6)
Clitic Placement: Adjoin pronominal clitics to a Spec-less IP.
The adjunction of X elements to XP projections is illegitimate under the current

theory, but we may assume that the defective character of IP (see Chomsky
(1986)b) makes it possible. The condition on the lack of Spec will become relevant
later.
According to (6), the configuration in (7) should be assumed instead of (5):
(7)
CP
I
IP.
I
CL
cl;
A
IP
I
-I
V-I
VP.
I
V
NP
I
tv
ej
_J
regarde
le
Move I is free to bypass the clitic because the node Infi does not dominate the clitic;
no excorporation is needed.
The hypothesis that pronominal cliticization involves adjunction to IP rather than
to I (I argue below that adverbial clitics are the only Romanian clitics that adjoin to I
itself) may be derived independently as a consequence of a well-formedness
condition on clitic chains: a pronominal clitic must c-command its trace, and an
element adjoined to Infi does not c-command (if we define c-command in terms of
branching nodes, see Reinhart (1976)) any position inside VP.6 The C-command
problem can be solved if we assume that pronominal clitics necessarily adjoin
higher, to IP, as shown in (7). Pronominal clitics cannot adjoin higher than IP, e.g.,
to NegP or CP, probably because Neg and Comp would block the antecedent
government of the clitic trace by the clitic.
6\Ve may of course assume that the Infi node that dominates the suing cl-I does not branch, but
this is a mere stipulation. This solution used to be commonly adopted for a similar problem
posed by the idea that the clitic attaches to V:
(i)
W
V NP
/ I I
cl V t c ,
In (i) the node V dominating the sequence cl V has to be considered as non-branching for the
clitic to be allowed to c-command its trace.
2.1.3. Two instances of Move Infl-to-Comp: V-second and V-preposing

The term "V-preposing" will be used here to refer to the rule assumed above, which
moves (V-) Infi to Comp and strands clitics (as in Romance imperatives, see (7)).
This rule should be distinguished from V-second, which takes clitics along:
(8)
a. Ne la venra-t-il pas?
not her will-see-he not?
'Won't he see her?'
b. N'est-il pas parti trop tt?
Not-is-he not left too soon?
'Didn't he leave too soon?'
According to den Besten (1977, 1983), Kayne (1983,1984) and Rizzi and Roberts
(1989), examples (8)a-b are derived from (9):
(9)
a. II ne la verra pas.
b. II n'est pas parti trop tt.
The sequences set in bold characters move leftward, by (residual) V-second. But
given the IP-adjunction hypothesis proposed above, these sequences are not
dominated by Infl, and therefore should not be accessible to Move Infi (since they
do not even form a constituent they should not be accessible to any movement rule):
(10)
CP
IP
Spec
(NegP)
Pronj IP
Infl VP
V-Infl
a. ne la verra
b. n'est
il
il
tNeg-Pron-V-Infl
tNeg-V-Infl
pas
pas parti
Note that the problem just mentioned arises independently of the IP-adjunction
hypothesis, in relation to the negative clitic. It is indeed currently assumed (see in
particular Zanuttini (1989)) that the negative element ne heads a NegP projection
and takes IP as a complement (as indicated in (10)). According to this analysis, ne

is not dominated by Infi, and as such should not be affected by Move Infi.
Another aspect of the same problem is the very existence of two rules such as
V-preposing and V-second: given the very general format known as "Move a",
how can Move Infi pick up either V+I (for V-preposing) or Neg cl V+I (for V
second)?
To answer this question, I introduce the rule of Restructuring Incorporation
stated in (12), which depends on the mechanism of Functional Coindexation
proposed in Chapter 1 and repeated in (11):
(11) Functional Coindexation: Coindex adjacent functional X categories.
(12) Restructuring Incorporation: Coindexed adjacent (functional) X categories
merge into one X category.
Restructuring Incorporation will affect the terminal substrings of (10) included in
the braces, which will be thereby reanalyzed as X categories labelled Infi:
(13) a. II [infl ne la verra] pas
b. II [Infi n'est] pas parti
A subsequent application of Move Infi will straightforwardly yield the word order
in (8).
As any rules of syntax, Move Infi and Restructuring Incorporation are optional and
unordered (their application nonetheless respects the cycle condition). By letting the
two rules apply freely we obtain the following possibilities:
(14) a. Restructuring Inc + Move I
b. Move I + Restructuring Inc
(V-second, see (8))

(V-preposing, see (4)a)
I have so far shown that (14)a corresponds to V-second, and it is reasonable to

believe that (14)b underlies the V rule that strands pronominal clitics. That Move I
applies in this case before Restructuring is undebatable (otherwise clitics would be
taken along). However, it is not clear whether Restructuring applies subsequently
(being optional, Restructuring might well not apply here).
A similar question arises for those strings which are not affected by Move Infi at
all, e.g., tu le vois 'you him see'. Does Restructuring Incorporation apply in this
case? The answer may rest on the type of licensing requirements that govern clitics
(see Holmberg (1991), Roberts (1991)):
(15)
a. Clitics are licensed by incorporation into Infi.7

b. Clitics are licensed by coindexation with Infi.
is well-known that in certain languages clitics do not cluster around Infi but rather around
Comp. This suggests that (15) should be stated not in terms of Infi but more generally, in terms
of functional heads. It would be interesting to find out whether the variation concerning the host
of clitics (Infi versus Comp) correlates with other cross-linguistic differences. NP-internal (or
rather DetP-intemal) clitics, which are not under investigation here, are covered by the suggested
extension of (15) because Determiners are functional heads that govern NPs (see Abney (1987)).
If (15)a is correct, then Restructuring Incorporation must be assumed, for licensing

purposes (the present proposal differs from that in Roberts (1991) and Kayne
(1991) in that pronominal clitics do not satisfy (15)a by directly incorporating (by
adjunction) into Infi; rather they adjoin to IP and are subject to Restructuring
Incorporation into Infi. Alternatively, if (15)b is sufficient, Restructuring
Incorporation is not needed in examples of the type tu le vois 'you him see'. I leave
this issue open here.
Note that under both (15)a and (15)b the clitic must be adjacent to Infi because
both Functional Coindexation and Restructuring Incorporation are constrained by
an adjacency condition. Hence clitic placement must necessarily be to a position
which is adjacent, but not necessarily adjoined to Infi: an element that adjoins to IP
is adjacent to Infi provided IP lacks Spec. The condition concerning the lack of
Spec which limits die application of IP-adjunction (see (6)) may thus be viewed as
a consequence of the licensing conditions that govern clitics.
There is an obvious question that was not directly asked. How does our grammar
ensure that V-second applies in interrogatives and V-preposing in imperatives,
infinitives, etc.? A partial answer is related to the adjacency condition on merging,
to be discussed below.
2. 1. 4. The ECP and Merging
Let us now reconsider V-preposing. The IP-adjunction hypothesis solves the

excorporation problem, but we are still left with an ECP violation:
(16)
0 regardej le ej
A
As notated by the diamond, this representation is illicit if we assume Rizzi's

definition of ECP in terms of relativized minimality (see Section 1.4.3. in Chapter
1): the clitic is an X category and as such, it blocks the antecedent government of
the trace of (V-)Infl by the raised (V-)Infl. Note that by Functional Coindexation
the clitic is coindexed with Infi independently of Merging (e.g., in (16)); but despite
this coindexation we may assume that the clitic counts as a blocking intervener in
(16), possibly because of its own index (functional coindexation would add a
functional index, but would not be able to delete the original distinct indices of the
various adjacent X categories).
This ECP violation can be avoided if Merging applies (see Chapter 1): the clitic
leaves its IP-adjunction position, and incorporates into Infi by adjoining to it, as
shown in (17):
(17)
regardej-le); e k e;
A ;
As a consequence of adjunction to Infi, the clitic no longer counts as an X element

distinct from Infi,8 and therefore it no longer blocks antecedent government. It must
also be assumed that the clitic trace left behind by the merging of the clitic (see ek in
(17)) is invisible for antecedent government
According to the proposed account, Move I-to-C is a sufficient condition for
Merging: the output of Move I-to-C is necessarily an input to Merging because if
Merging did not apply an ECP violation would arise:
(18) a. V+I [ I P cl [ipt v+ i]]
t
I
(Move I-to-C)
b. V+I+cl [jp tci [ipt v+ i]]
(Merging)
Because Merging necessarily applies, Restructuring Incorporation becomes

inoperative. Thus, the derivation in (19) is forced by the general principles of
grammar, and this bleeds the derivation in (14)b:
(19)
Move I + Merging
(V-preposing).
According to the foregoing proposal, Move I-to-C is not a necessary condition on

Merging: theoretically, Merging could apply in the absence of Move I-to-C. I will
assume, however, that this is not possible. The reason may be Chomsky's (1989)
Economy Principle: if nothing forces Merging, it will not apply. The syntactic
Merging described here should be kept distinct from the phonological Merging
which may apply in the absence of Move I-to-C (see Marantz (1988)).
To conclude this section, let us briefly compare Merging and Restructuring
Incorporation. The effect of Restructuring Incorporation is that the hierarchical
configuration that comprises the clitic reanalyzes as one single X constituent;
however, the clitic stays in the position in which it is placed (by clitic placement).
Merging, on the other hand, relies on the clitic moving out of the IP-adjunction
position. As a consequence of Merging, the clitic becomes indissociable from Infi
(it can no longer be stranded by subsequent applications of Move Infi). The clitic
thus assumes the status of a "derived" bound morpheme, i.e., a morpheme that
becomes bound in the course of the derivation. Compare affixes, which present a
morphologically subcategorized position; they are thus "base" bound morphemes
(they are defined as bound morphemes in the Lexicon). A still different case is
instantiated by those clitics which adjoin directly to Infi (see Romanian adverbial
clitics), and therefore cannot be stranded by Move I (as discussed above, in relation
to the ban on excorporation).
According to this analysis, example (16) illustrates Chomsky's (1989)
dissociation between the Head Movement Constraint and ECP: in (16) Move Infi
The impossibility of the verb moving over the negative clitic may be due to the fact that the
negative clitic cannot incorporate to the verb, and this may in turn be due to the fact that Neg is a
head which projects a functional category, unlike pronominal clitics; an S-structure constraint may
also be invoked, which requires that Neg should C-command Tense at S-structure (see Laka
(1989)).
violates the HMC (because the X position occupied by the clitic is skipped by Vpreposing), but obeys the ECP, due to clitic merging.
2.1.5. The adjacency condition on Merging
In order to further specify the constraints that govern V-preposing and clitic
merging, let us assume that a lexical element X intervenes between Comp and IP;
after V-preposing to Comp we end up with (20), which is illicit because the
intervening clitic blocks the antecedent government of the verb trace:
(20)
OV-I-cl X tci tV-i
This violation can be avoided if the clitic is allowed to move and adjoin to V-I
bypassing X. I shall assume that an adjacency condition holds on Merging, which
rules this derivation out:
(21)
Merging applies between adjacent elements.
The adjacency condition on Merging has as an indirect consequence a constraint on

the landing site of V-preposing: since the rule of V-preposing can only apply if
clitic merging itself can apply, the preposed verb must land in the position which is
immediately to the left of the clitic; in other words, V-preposing is strictly local; it
can only skip the clitic itself.
The strict locality of V-preposing may explain why this rule applies in Romance
imperatives, to the exclusion of the other finite moods. There is indeed one striking
characteristic that sets imperatives apart, namely their lack of overt preverbal
subjects. The question arises as to whether a syntactic preverbal position should
nevertheless be provided for nonovert imperative subjects. Let us assume minimally
that imperative verbs are not preceded by a visible9 null subject (this is especially
relevant for S-V-0 languages), and leave open the choice between further, more
precise hypotheses concerning the exact nature of imperative subjects. Being
invisible for syntax, the subject of imperatives will not disturb the strict locality
required by V-preposing. (23) would be the S-structure representation of (22):
(22)
regarde-le
(23)
[ C ompregarde r le k ] [ I P t k U]
An interesting question concerning adjacency arises with respect to examples like

(24), in which the verb appears to have bypassed two pronominal clitics:
(24) a. d-i-1
give-himDat-himAccus
^"Visible" means "visible for syntactic rules". The reader may recall well-known differences
between empty categories: PRO is not visible for the want to -wanna contraction rule (see Jaeggli
(1980)), but wh-traces are.
b. trimite-mi-o
send-meDat-herAccus
What is the derivation of these examples: did the V bypass both clitics in one step,
or did it first land in some intermediary position? The second hypothesis is
probably incorrect because there is no intermediary landing position for the verb.
Following the first hypothesis, on the other hand, we must understand what makes
it possible for both clitics to incorporate: because of the adjacency requirement the
second clitic cannot merge with the inflected verb. This problem is solved if we
assume that strings of pronominal clitics are flat structures, dominated by a single
node that adjoins to IP:
da-i-1
give-him-it
Given the configuration in (24'), V-preposing bypasses just one clitic position, and
clitic merging of the two-pronominal string i-1 'himDat-himAccus' applies under
adjacency.
The hypothesis that sequences of pronominal clitics are flat is corroborated by
the various idiosyncracies that characterize the order of pronominal clitics: in (25)a
the accusative clitic precedes the dative clitic, and in (25)b the reverse order is
observed:
(25) a. Je le lui dirai.
I it him sayfut
b. Je te le dirai.
I you it sayfut
Insofar as we cannot find any syntactic explanation for this peculiar distribution, we
may assume that the strings of pronominal clitics are not hierarchichally structured.
Their various linear orderings are presumably due to linearization processes

performed in the Morphological Component10 (see Bonet i Alsina (1991)).
Conclusions
The theory of cliticization proposed here relies on (a) IP-adjunction, (b) Move Infi,
(c) Restructuring Incorporation, (d) Merging. By allowing these rules to apply
freely we can explain without stipulation why Move Infi may move different X
elements, namely either cl-V- just V-I. The labels V-second and V-preposing
used for convenience do not designate two distinct rules but rather two distinct
derivations: Restructuring Incorporation + Move I and Move I + Merging
(Merging bleeds Restructuring Incorporation). The common property of these two
derivations (in both cases the landing position of the moved element is Comp) is
due to a general constraint on Move I, namely Head to Head Movement (see Travis
(1984), Baker (1988) and Chomsky (1986b)): the verb, just like the cl-V string, is
an X constituent, which can only move to the next higher X position, which is
Comp. The fact that Comp is the target slot of both V-preposing and V second
explains why in the general case, these rules apply in main but not in embedded
clauses. 1 1 The diverging properties of V second and V-preposing are a
consequence of the application of Restructuring Incorporation on the one hand and
of Merging on the other.
These two derivations have as a result two distinct types of syntactic clitics.
They are both subject to the requirement of licensing by incorporation (or by
adjunction to Infi), but they satisfy it in distinct ways: (a) preverbal clitics are placed
in an IP-adjunction position and they incorporate to the inflected verb via
Restructuring Incorporation, a process that turns (26)a into (26)b; (b) postverbal
clitics are merged clitics: they move out of their IP-adjunction position and merge
with the preposed inflected verb:
(26) a. Comp... [ IP cl [IPV-I [ VP t v ... ]
b. Comp... [ IP [j cl V-I] [Vp t v ]
c. [comp V-I-cl] [ IP tci [ IP t v .,]]]
k
-
(Restructuring Incorporation)
(Merging)
Besides the different positions they occupy with respect to the verb, the two types
of clitics present a number of other correlated differences, which are directly
explained by the account proposed here: (a) unlike restructuring clitics, merged
clitics cannot be stranded by subsequent applications of Move Infi; (b) coordinating
merged clitics is impossible, whereas coordinating preverbal clitics is marginally
acceptable; (c) in Section 2.3.4. below it will be shown that Merging has an
important effect on the phonological shape of Romanian clitics.
10
For the existence of a Morphological Component that relates PF to Phonology see Halle
(1989).
11
The latter possibility does, however, arise in cases where the main verb subcategorizes for a
Infl-headed complement (on this proposal see also Rizzi and Roberts (1989)), and this is the case
with Romanian auxiliaries (see Chapter 1 and Section 2.4. below).
Before moving on to an examination of Romanian cliticization, let me note that

neither the data analyzed here, nor any data that I know of, can help us decide
whether adjunction to IP is base- or movement-adjunction. It is clear that even if
pronominal clitics are to be directly base-generated in a position adjoined to IP, an
empty category in an -position must be assumed, which accounts for their
subcategorization properties. Thus, at S-structure there is no difference between the
two possibilities.
Let me mention that base adjunction should be assumed if we want to assume
that Head movement cannot resort to adjunction; Clitic Placement is indeed the only
rule that does not obey this constraint.
2. 2. Romanian clitics
The clitic system of Romanian is richer than that of the other Romance languages:
besides pronominal clitics, this language has at its disposal adverbial clitics (other
than the negative adverb, which is found in all Romance languages) and clitic
conjunctions (see a for infinitives and s for subjunctives, discussed in Chapter 3);
more importantly, Romanian auxiliaries qualify as verbal clitics.
All these elements share a peculiar distribution, namely they cluster around the
inflected verb. The ordered sequences given in (27)-(28) are the two maximal
possible strings in Romanian; in case one or several elements are not instantiated,
the relative order of the other elements is not affected:
(27)
a.
b.
(28)
a.
b.
Comp - Neg - Pron - Adv - Aux2 - V

s nu
mai fi vzut
thatsubj not
her again be seen
'that [I] should not have seen her again'
a
nu
mai fi
to
not her again be
'not to have seen her again'
vzut
seen
Neg - Pron - Auxi - Adv - Aux2 - V Pron 12

nu 1 ar
mai
fi
intrebat..
not him
would again
be
asked
'he/she wouldn't have asked him again'
nu
ar
mai fi
intrebat-o
..her...
The order in (27) characterizes simple tenses. Note that the only clitic
complementizers of Romanian are s and a for subjunctives and infinitives
respectively. In Chapter 3, an explanation will be proposed for the fact that the
complementizer that heads Romanian indicatives is not a clitic.
12
For the sake of exhaustiveness I have inserted Aux2, but in Section 1.6. it has been shown that
fi does not behave as a clitic, but rather as part of a discontinous morpheme, directly generated
under Infi. The distribution of fi, which was discussed in detail in Section 1.6., will be left aside
here.
The sequence in (28) differs from (27) in two ways, which will be shown to be
correlated: Auxi appears and the feminine singular clitic 'her' is postverbal. All
the other clitics show up in the pie-auxiliary position.
At this point in our discussion, the sequences in (27) and (28) seem to be
disconnected from each other; it will be shown that they rely on the same
underlying configuration, their differences being due to the Move-Infl rule that
applies in (28), but not in (27).
2.2. 1. Deriving linear order from hierarchical structure
It is easy to see that the very strict linear order in (27) need not be stipulated (as in
template morphology), but is due to general principles and well-formedness
conditions of the grammar. Thus, the relative position of Neg, Infi and Comp is
presumably due to the government requirements that hold between these functional
categories and their projections: in quite a number of languages, the Neg head
governs an IP constituent; NegP itself is governed by Comp (see Zanuttini (1989)).
Hence (29):
(29) CP
C NegP
Neg
IP
The configuration in (29) is common to all Romance languages (Neg dominates ne

in French and nu in Romanian). The only peculiarity of Romanian is that the
subjunctive and infinitival complementizers (si and a) qualify as clitics.13
In the previous section I have argued in favour of the idea that Romance clitic
pronouns adjoin to IP. This hypothesis was designed to solve two distinct
problems: (a) the fact that clitics may be left behind when Move I-to-C applies; (b)
the C-command requirement on the clitic-trace relation. Nothing new need be added
for Romanian pronominal clitics (for their phonological properties see Section 2.3.
below).
Consider for comparison adverbial clitics. Their existence constitutes a
peculiarity of Romanian, but their behaviour follows without stipulation from the
general theory of cliticization outlined above. Since adverbial clitics do not bind any
trace, no C-command requirement constrains them. They are therefore free to adjoin
to Infi. That they do not adjoin to the verb itself can be shown by considering the
following examples:
(30) a. il mai vd
him again [I] see
*mai il vd
13
As shown in Chapter 3, this is due to the fact that in Romanian the canonical subject position
is (Spec, VP); therefore, (Spec, IP) is not an -position, which means that Comp is adjacent to
the sequence Neg V-Infl, and this makes Restructuring Incorporation possible.
b. *pot mai vedea

[I] can again see
mai pot vedea
c. *pot il vedea
[I] can him see
il pot vedea
Example (30)a shows that the position of adverbial clitics is between pronominal
clitics and the verb. Given the hypothesis that clitic pronouns adjoin to IP, the order
in (30)a is compatible with two possible positions for the adverb: adjunction to Infi
or adjunction to V. The ungrammaticality of (30)b allows us to choose among these
possibilities; if adverbial clitics were allowed to adjoin directly to the verb (as
proposed by Rivero (1988a, to appear)) nothing could rule (30)b out. If instead we
assume that adverbial clitics attach obligatorily to Infi, the ungrammaticality of
(30)b may be due to the fact, which is independently motivated (see Section 1.4 and
below), that the verb a putea 'may, can' subcategorizes for a VP complement: the
infinitive in (30)b-c is truly "bare", in the sense that it does not raise to Infi, but
stays inside VP: in the absence of Infi, the adverbial clitic, just as the pronominal
clitic (see (30)c)), cannot show up attached to the lexical verb. The
ungrammaticality of (30)b thus forces us to assume that V cannot be a host for
adverbial clitics. Let me stress that adverbial clitics are the only clitics that could be
assumed to be directly adjoined to V for the following reasons: (a) they are closest
to the verb (whenever a pronominal clitic is present the order Pron Adv V i s
obligatory and Adv Pron V precluded); (b) they are taken along under Move I-to-C
(see the discussion in section 2.3.1. below). We then reach the conclusion that no
clitic adjoins to V.
On the basis of the preceding remarks, we are led to assume that the linear order
given in (27) relies on the hierarchical configuration in (31); I have left aside Aux2,
which has been discussed in Chapter 1:
(31)
CP
l \
C NegP
I
\
Neg IP
Pron;
IP
Infi
Adv
VP
V-Infl NP
V'
tv
NP
In sum, the very strict linear order in (27) need not be stipulated; it derives from the
hierarchical structure directly obtained by the base rules of syntax and by the
adjunction of pronominal and adverbial clitics to IP and I, respectively. In the next
section, it will be shown that the highly structured configuration in (31) allows us
to account for the various reorderings of clitic clusters.
The present analysis may be compared with lexico-morphological approaches,
which could only stipulate distinct slots for each clitic (as one would do in template
morphology); besides its non-explanatory character, such an approach makes the
false prediction that clitic clusters cannot be reordered by the rules of syntax (under
the hypothesis that words are not accessible to syntactic rules). These shortcomings
would also arise within a syntactic theory of clitics, according to which clitic
clusters would be flat constituents generated under a CL node adjoined to Infi in the
syntax:
(32)
I
CL
cl
I
cl
...
Such a structure would not account for the asymmetries discussed below between
Romanian adverbial and pronominal clitics (the order V-cl is possible, in certain
well-defined contexts, for pronominal clitics, but not for adverbial clitics); nor could
we assign an adequate structure to Romanian auxiliary structures. What we need is
a syntactic theory which assigns a hierarchical structure to clitic clusters (but recall
that there is a flat sequence inside the clitic cluster, namely the sequence of
pronominal clitics; see the discussion of examples (24)).
The hierarchical structure in (31) is subject to Restructuring Incorporation and
Merging, under the general conditions proposed in previous sections.
2. 2. 2. A definition of clitics
To conclude this presentation of Romanian clitics, let me try to define the notion of
syntactic clitic (to be kept distinct from phonological clitics), by trying to establish
the common property of clitic elements belonging to distinct syntactic categories
such as N, Adv, V:
(33)
A syntactic clitic is an element which is licensed by Functional

Coindexation/Restructuring Incorporation with Infi.
Given the adjacency condition on Functional Coindexation/Restructuring

Incorporation, (33) has the effect that all syntactic clitics are necessarily adjacent to
Infi. This does not mean that any kind of Infi is an adequate host for clitics: it has
been suggested that in order to be able to function as a host for clitics, Infi must
trigger V-to-I movement (in other words an Infi which is a host for clitics cannot be
subject to Affix Hopping).
Clitics differ among each other in the manner in which they satisfy condition
(33): (a) Neg is a functional head that subcategorizes a Spec-less IP; Comp is a
functional head that subcategorizes NegP (in later sections it will be shown that
clitic auxiliaries subcategorize a particular type of CP); (b) pronominal clitics adjoin
to a Spec-less IP; (c) adverbial clitics adjoin to Infi. An important difference thus
appears to exist between the case depicted in (a) and the other two: functional
categories such as Comp or Neg are clitics but they are not inserted by Clitic
Placement in an adjunction position; rather they are heads that take complements.
Therefore, adjunction (to either IP or Infi) cannot be viewed as the defining
property of clitics. Note further that syntactic clitics do not necessarily present nonclitic counterparts (the only clitics that present them are pronominal clitics). Also, it
is not the syntactic position perse that defines clitichood: clitic conjunctions occupy
the position which is occupied by non-clitic conjunctions; the clitic status of certain
conjunctions is due to their being subject to Functional Coindexation/Restructuring
Incorporation (due to the fact that they are adjacent to the inflected verb, unlike nonclitic conjunctions, which are separated from Infi by (Spec, IP)).
2.3. The rule of V-preposing and clitic Merging

In this section, I will briefly discuss a number of phenomena, which although
specific to Romanian, can be straightforwardly accounted for within the general
theory proposed above.
2.3. 1. Adverbial clitics and V-preposing
Compare (34) and (35):
(34)
a. spune-mi
tell-me
b. d-mi-1
give-me-it
(35) a. mai spune-mi

b. *spune(-mi) mai
c *spune-mai-(mi)
The contrast between (34)a-b and (35)b-c can be understood if we assume the
structure in (31), in which adverbial clitics attach to Infi, and pronominal clitics
attach to IP. Given (31), a rule stated as Move (V-)Infl to Comp will leave
pronominal clitics behind and take adverbial clitics along (see (35)a). This explains
the ungrammaticality of (35)b-c, which present postverbal adverbial clitics. Note
that a constraint on the number of postverbal clitics cannot be invoked: as indicated
by the brackets, the examples stay ungrammatical if we delete the pronominal clitic
(besides, several pronominal clitics are allowed to remain in the postverbal position,
as in (34)b). In (36) only the relevant part of the structure is represented:
(36)
CP
Iv
C (*NegP)
(*Neg)
IP,
I
Prori;
IP
Infi
VP
(Adv) V-Infl
(34) a. spune
tell
b. d
give
mi
me
mi-1
me-it
(35) a. mai spune

again tell
mi
me
ty-Infl
ty-Infl
tAdv V--Infl
The behaviour of Romanian adverbial clitics seems to me extremely important with

regard to the theory of incorporation. What they show is that elements which adjoin
to Infi itself cannot be stranded by Move I-to-C; this means that "excorporation"
must be banned not only for incorporation into morphologically subcategorized
positions, but also for incorporation by adjunction (compare Roberts (1991)). The
data in (35)a-c really make this point only if it can be shown: (a) that adverbial
clitics do not adjoin to V itself (if they did examples (35)a-c would say nothing
concerning Move I); (b) that Move I does apply (if it did not, the adverbial clitic
would simply occupy its original position). The point in (a) has already been made
above (see the discussion of examples (30)); as to (b), Move I is obvious, given the
postverbal position that characterizes pronominal clitics in (34)a-b.
2. 3. 2. Move I lands in Comp
The Romanian construction illustrated in (37)b constitutes interesting evidence in
favour of den Besten's hypothesis according to which Comp is the target slot of the
rule of Move Infi that is responsible for V-cl inversion:
(37) a. S se intimple ce s-o intimpla.
That se happens what se-FUT happen
'Whatever happens, happens.'
b. Intimple-se ce s-o intimpla.
happen-se what se-FUT happen
In (37)b the element s is necessarily absent, which can be understood on the

conjoined assumptions that s is a complementizer (see Chapter 3) and that the
landing site of V-preposing is Comp: 14
(38)
CP
C
(*NegP)
(*Neg)
IP.
I
Prorij
IP
Infi
VP
(Adv) V-Infl
a. s
se
intimple
b. indmple
se
tv_Infl
The paradigm in (37) also supports the locality condition on V-preposing. It is

indeed a clear property of s that it can be separated from the verb only by
pronominal clitics (see (37)a), the auxiliary fi (see perfect subjunctives), and the
negative adverb; no XP category is allowed between s and the verb, and in
particular not even the subject (see Chapter 3). V-preposing cannot apply in
negative subjunctives (just as it does not in negative imperatives), nor in perfect
subjunctives (for unclear reasons). The movement that underlies inverted
subjunctives (see (37)b) thus skips only pronominal clitics; hence the adjacency
condition on Merging is satisfied (recall that Merging is obligatory, in order to
avoid an ECP violation).
2.3.3. Negation
The different distribution of clitics in positive and negative imperatives can be
analyzed as being due to the ECP:
l^Rivero's (1988a, to appear) rule of V movement differs from mine only insofar as it presents an
intermediary step, a position labelled Infi. Note that Rivero's Infi slot, which dominates s,
corresponds to my Comp. The difference is not only terminological: Rivero postulates two
positions, Comp and Infi, whereas I postulate just one position; in my analysis V lands in the
position of s in (37)b; for Rivero it goes through this position, but does not land in it. It is not
clear what kind of empirical evidence could help distinguish between these two hypotheses, since
both approaches predict that elements such as s are bound to be absent in V-preposing
constructions (here because this is the landing site of the rule, according to Rivero because the
same position is an intermediary slot).
(39)
69
a. trimitej-l ej acas15
send-him home
b. nu-ltnmite
not-him send
c. *nu trimitei-1 ei
d. *tiimitei nu-lei
(39)c is ungrammatical because between the negative adverb and the clitic there is
no head position for the verb to land on (see (36)); (39)d is ungrammatical because
an intervening head, the negative clitic, has been skipped, which leads to an ECP
violation: the negative particle is a head which blocks antecedent government of the
V trace by the raised verb. Recall that Functional Coindexation must be assumed to
apply to Neg V+I sequences, in order to explain why V second can move not just
V+I, but the whole sequence Neg V+I. The blocking effect of Neg (39)d clearly
indicates that an intervening X blocks antecedent government of the trace of a
moved Y element, even if X and Y are functionally coindexed. Merging is the
only escape strategy; the ungrammaticality of (39)d indicates that Neg cannot merge
with the preposed verb, probably because it must preserve its status of head of
NegP. The brackets around NegP and Neg in (36) and (38) are intended to indicate
that the negative head is necessarily absent whenever V-preposing applies.
Consider next the example in (40):
(40)
Negsinduj-1 ey acas...
not-finding-him home
The peculiarity of this example resides in the fact that the negative adverb (note that
the phonological form of this element is different from that of the negative element
nu) is taken along by V-preposing; 16 antecedent government is therefore not
blocked, and the example is grammatical. The exact derivation of (40) is not
relevant; we may assume either of the following possibilities: (a) ne is generated
attached to Infi itself, on a par with the other clitic adverbs (mai 'still, again', cam
'quite a bit'; $i 'also, too', etc.); the Move Infi rule applies to the string dominated by
the highest Infi node, thus taking ne along, just like the other clitic adverbs (see
nemaigsindu-1 acas 'no-longer-finding-him home'); (b) ne is generated in the
same position as nu, i.e., under Neg, a head that subcategorizes for a projection of
^Romanian imperatives preceded by a conjunction allow the clitic to precede them (as notated by
the dash, in (i) phonological cliticization may apply between the clitic and the conjunction; this is
a general property of Romanian clitics, see Section 2.3.4.); the clitic may also occupy the
standard postverbal position:
(i)
ia-1 }i-l du
ia-1 du-I
'take-him and-him take away'
(ii)
ia-ne i ne du
ia-ne i du-ne
'take-us and-us take away'
assume that this rule ends up in Comp, just as in the general case (see Romance imperatives).
Compare Rivero (1988a, to appear), who assumes that in Romanian gerunds the verb ends up in a
position labelled Infi (which is distinct from AGR/Tense), the host of the invariable particles of
subjunctives and infinitives (see footnote 14 above).
Infi; ne is specified as a prefix, i.e., ne is morphologically subcategorized for a V

position to which the inflected V moves (leaving behind pronominal clitics); the
resulting constituent further moves to Comp. 17
2. 3. 4. Proclisis,
enclisis
and
Merging
The clitic pronouns in (41) differ from their non-clitic counterparts both by their
phonological shape and by their distribution: 18 non-clitic object pronouns (pe mine
/ tine / el / ea 'pe me / you / him'; mie, (ie, lui 'me-Dat, you-Dat') occur in the
environments characteristic of NPs, as opposed to clitics, which necessarily precede
the verb:
(41)
a. Ion m / t e / f l / o / n e / v / i i / l e apreciaz
John me / you / him / her... appreciate

b. Ion i m i / i f i / i i / n e / v / l e scrie
John me-Dat / you-Dat / him-Dat... writes

The ci-V sequences illustrated in (41) show the well-known properties (see Kayne
(1975)) that indicate that the two elements make up a word-like constituent (more
precisely an X constituent obtained by Restructuring Incorporation). Note,
however, that the clitics in (41) do not fall under the definition in (42):
(42)
A phonological clitic and its host make up an entity that is characterized as a

phonological word (the phonological rules do not assign any word barrier
inside the cl-host sequence).
Indeed, it should be noted that Romanian does not present diphthongs of the type
a, which would have to be postulated by any analysis that does not insert a word
limit between the clitic and the verb in mapreciaz (see (41)a). Compare the clitics
in (43), which occupy the preverbal position, like those in (41), but differ from
them by their phonological shape (compare -1, -i, m-, -p to fl, ii, m, ip), which
signals phonological cliticization. Thus we may say that the clitics in (41) are
syntactic clitics, whereas those in (43) are both syntactic (since they occupy the
same position with respect to the verb) and phonological:
(43)
a. (i)
Nu tie c-1 /c-o/c-i
agteapt
mama.
[he] not knows that-him / that-her /that-them waits mother

H e doesn't know that mother waits for him / her / them'
(ii)
Mana-1 /Maria-i
ateapt de or.
Mary-him / Mary-them waits for an hour

17
This analysis might also apply to (i), which according to Bredemeier (1976: 73) is the only
example he could find where a postverbal clitic coexists with a negated subjunctive:
Grija noastr n-aib-o nime (Eminescu)
(hardly translatable literally; the meaning would be "nobody should worry about us")
Note that nu appears under its weak form -, which may perhaps function here as a prefix. The
strong form nu seems incorrect to my ear.
18
For extremely detailed presentations of the Romanian pronominal clitics see de Kok (1985,
1989) and Bredemeier (1976).
(iii)
Nu-I /n-o
/nu-i
a$tept
[I] not-him / not-her / not-them wait [for]

b.
M-agteapt
te-agteapt...
[he] me-waits / [he] you-waits

H e waits for me / for you.'
c. (i)
Mama nu $tie c-mi/c-fi/c-i
scrie
Ion.
mother not knows that-me-Dat / that-you-Dat... writes John

'Mother doesn't know that John writes to me / to you ...'
(ii)
Maria-mi
/ Man a-p / Maria-i scrie
des.
Mary-meDat / Mary-youD a t / Mary-himDat writes frequently

(iii)
Nu-mi/nu-{i
/nu-i place
marea.
[I] not-meDat / [you] not-youDat pleases the sea

V you do not like the sea.'
d,
mi-aduce
p-aduce...
[he] me-Dat-brings / you-Dat-brings

'he brings me / you ...'
Note that the clitics in (43) are syntactic clitics with respect to the inflected verb (the
inflected verb constitutes their syntactic host), but they may cliticize phonologically
either to the right, on the verb (see (43)b,d), or to the left (see (43)a,c), on
constituents that do not function as their host (complementizers, NP subjects, the
negative clitic). Phonological cliticization thus does not appear to depend on
syntactic cliticization, but only on S-structure adjacency 19 (see Marantz (1988)): the
clitic may attach phonologically to an element which is not its syntactic host. 20
An important characteristic of the examples in (43) is that phonological
cliticization is optional, independently of the direction in which it applies; examples
(44) differ from those in (43) in presenting syntactic non phonological clitics:
(44)
a.
Nutiec/co/ciia$teaptmama.
[he] does not know that him/ that her/ that them waits for mother
Maria il ateapt.
Mary him waits for

b. m a$teapt/te
agteapt...
me [he] waits/ you [he] waits

c. Mama nu tie c imi / c ip / c ii scrie
Ion.
mother does not know that meDat/ that youQat/ that himDat writes John
Maria imi scrie
des.
Mary meDat writes frequently

d. imi aduce/ip
aduce...
meDat [he] brings/ youDat [he] brings
19 If
this adjacency requirement is strict, i.e., if intervening empty categories are disallowed, on a
par with lexical elements, phonological cliticization may be used as a test for the distribution of
empty categories. In particular, (43)a would indicate that no empty subject is present between the
conjunction and the cl V sequence.
20we may also recall cases such as I'll go, where 7/ is a phonological, but not a syntactic clitic (it
occupies the same syntactic position as shall/will, its non-clitic counterparts).
Consider next the following examples, which are characterized by two correlated
properties: the clitics occupy the postverbal position, and they show obligatory
phonological cliticization (as indicated by the ungrammaticality of (46), with a
purely syntactic, non-phonological clitic):
(45) a. apnndu-m /-te /-1..
defending-me / -you / -him
b. apr-m/-te / -1..
defend-me/ defend-you[rself]...
(46) a. *apMnd(u) il
b. *aprfl
An obvious coiTelation can then be established between the obligatory character of
phonological cliticization in (45) - as opposed to its optional nature in (43) - and the
application of V-preposing. It seems natural to assume that the obligatory
phonological cliticization in (45) is an effect of Merging, which has been shown to
be itself triggered by V-preposing. Compare Restructuring Incorporation, which
allows, but does not force, phonological cliticization (phonological cliticization is
optional in (43)).
Conclusions
To sum up, the data examined in this section supports the theory outlined
previously. Moreover, we now have at our disposal a number of important tests,
which may help us infer the underlying structure in certain cases which would be
compatible with more than one analysis:
(a) Clitics cannot adjoin to V; they can only adjoin to Infi or to a Spec-less IP.
(b) If V-preposing does not apply, the relative order between pronominal and
adverbial clitics is Pron Adv V-I. Whenever a different order appears, we may infer
that a rule of V-preposing has applied.
(c) V-preposing strands pronouns, but never strands adverbs.
(d) V-preposing triggers obligatory phonological cliticization. In all the other
environments phonological cliticization is optional.
2. 4. Move I-to-C (V-preposing) in auxiliary structures
I now turn to the initial motivation of the foregoing investigation of cliticization,
which was the attempt to establish the underlying structure of Romanian auxiliary
constructions. It will be shown that the tests established above converge in
indicating that in Romanian auxiliary constructions the lexical verb is subject to Vpreposing; more precisely, the lexical verb raises to Infi and (V+)Infl raises to
Comp. This hypothesis is central to the analysis proposed in Chapter 1, which is
thereby strongly supported.
73
2. 4. 1. The distribution of clitics in auxiliary structures

The distribution of pronominal clitics in auxiliary structures shows the following
peculiarities: (a) the feminine singular clitic 'her' appears to the right of the lexical
(infinitival or participial) verb (see (48)), whereas the other clitics appear in front of
the auxiliary (see (47)a-b); (b) no pronominal clitic can appear between the auxiliary
and the verb (see (47)c-d); (c) obligatory phonological cliticization characterizes not
only the enclitic o, but also the clitics that occupy the pre-auxiliary position (see
(47)a-b vs (49)c):
(47)
a 1-am rugat
[I] him-have asked
b l-a$ruga
[I] him-would ask
c *amil/o rugat
[I] have him/ her asked
d *ail / ruga
[I] would him/ her ask
(48) a amrugat-o
[I] have asked-her
b a ruga-o21
[I] would ask-her
(49) a il agtept /l-atept
[I] him wait
b il am in buzunar/ *l-am in buzunar
[I] it have in the pocket
c *il am rugat
[] him have asked
As observed in Chapter 1, the fact that in auxiliary constructions 'her' is
postverbal whereas all the other clitics show up before the auxiliary (see the data in
(47)a-b vs (48)), cannot be related to a syntactic peculiarity but most probably
involves phonological processes. It is indeed difficult to understand why is
necessarily postverbal on the basis of its [+fem] feature; its phonological
"weakness" is instead likely to be relevant. Let us then assume that the two
positions in (47) and (48) are not S-structure, but rather Surface Structure
positions; there is only one S-structure position, correlated with phonological
processes that account for the existence of two Surface Structure positions. Now
we have to decide whether the S-structure position is that of (47)a-b or that of (48).
The first possibility is to assume that the pre-auxiliary position is the "basic"
syntactic position, by assimilating "pre-auxiliary" with "pre-verbal".
The future construction is characterized by the same structure as (48)a-b, but the distribution of
is less clear-cut; both the pre-auxiliary and the pre-verbal positions are allowed:
(i)
voi ajuta-o
[I] will help-her
(ii)
voi ajuta
The crucial point is that the postverbal position is allowed; compare simple tenses, where can
only be in the pre-verbal position.
configuration of the following type could be assumed (see Rivero (1988a, to

appear)):
(50)
blUuxpAuxVP]]
This is not the analysis proposed in Chapter 1, according to which Romanian

auxiliary configurations are represented by the structure in (51), where the Infi node
is not related to Aux, but to the lexical verb itself; Aux adjoins to a CP/IP
complement and V-preposing applies inside this CP/IP:
(51)
CP/IP
I
\
Aux CP/IP
I
\
C
MP
Aux
V-I
ty.j
tv
NP0
In what follows it will be shown that this structure allows us to account for the
distribution of the clitics shown in (47)-(48) by assuming the analysis of
cliticization proposed above for non auxiliary constructions. I will then return to the
alternative analysis in (50), and point out its shortcomings.
According to an important generalization obtained in previous sections, adverbial
clitics adjoin to Infi and pronominal clitics to IP. In (51) there is no Infi that
governs Aux; the only available Infi node is the one associated with the lexical
verb. Hence the structure in (52), where both adverbial and pronominal clitics attach
to the lower Infi (and therefore to the lexical verb, as a result of V-to-I movement):
the expected linear order would then be Aux-Comp-Pron-Adv-V-I,
which can
indeed be observed in "biclausal" Tenses (see Section 1.2.1.). However, in the
auxiliary constructions illustrated in (47) and (48), pronominal clitics cannot
intervene between the auxiliary and the verb (see (47)c-d). The absence of this
word order may be analyzed as being due to the fact that V-preposing is obligatory;
as a result, the pronominal clitic (generated in the medial position) necessarily ends
up in the postverbal position, which can be directly observed for 'her':
NP 0
a. a (mai)
vaz-ut-Op
tp
t(Adv)V-i Ion
has (again) see-en-her

b. va (mai) vedea-
will
tv
ep
tv
ep
John
tp
t(Adv)V-i Ion
(again) see-her
John
The proposed analysis explains why in the future and conditional paradigms the
infinitive lacks the complementizer particle a 'to 1 : 2223 since the preposed V+Infl
occupies the Comp position, the complementizer element a cannot be generated
(recall that Move I-to-C is an instance of substitution into an empty X position).
Compare (52)b to (53), where a is present and correlatively the clitic occupies its
base preverbal position.:
(53)
Incearc s-o pedepsegti
fr a jigni.
try si-her punish without a her offend

It thus appears that the enclitic position that occupies in auxiliary structures is not
idiosyncratic, but may be derived via the rule of V-preposing, which has been
shown to apply in other structures, such as imperatives, gerunds and finite inverted
conjugations. We may then assume that the post-verbal position characteristic of
is the S-structure position of all clitics. As to the pre-auxiliary position occupied by
all the other clitics, there are two possible alternatives, although I do not intend to
discuss their relative merits. We may assume that the pre-auxiliary position is due to
some phonological rule that applies at Surface Structure and moves certain
elements, depending on their phonological characteristics. Alternatively, we may
assume that the clitic is allowed to climb up - in the syntax - and adjoin on the left
of the auxiliary (the feminine singular clitic would have to stay in its postverbal
22
S e e Chapter 3, where it is shown that the analogy between a and to is not perfect.
A n alternative hypothesis can be envisaged: auxiliaries would be generated in the position
characteristic of a. But this assumption does not account for other important properties of
auxiliary structures, and in particular does not explain the distribution of clitics.
23
position because of some phonological constraint): under both analyses the

postverbal position characteristic of is syntactically relevant, either as the Sstructure position of clitics, or as the position of a clitic trace.24 Note that the rule
that moves the clitic from the post-verbal to the pre-auxiliary position violates a
strict version of the structure preservation condition because there is no landing
position for the clitic. This again suggests that the underlying operation is a
phonological process, or perhaps a morphological rule which, as different from
purely syntactic rules, operates inside a (complex) X constituent.25
It is important to note that the rule that is responsible for the climbing of the clitic
from the postverbal to the pre-auxiliary position seems to affect only merged
clitics: 26 clitic climbing applies only in contexts where V-preposing itself has
applied, and we know that V-preposing triggers Merging. We may turn this
observation into a constraint:
(54)
Clitic climbing can only affect merged

restructuring clitics.
clitics, to the exclusion of
Note furthermore that the clitic climbing needed here is strictly local: the clitic
climbs over the complex X element formed by its host (Infi and the verb raised to
24
T o choose between the two analyses, one may also take into account two phenomena that used
to exist in older (see also dialectal) varieties of Romanian (the examples are from Bredemeier
1976: 38-39):
(i)
Tu ai aruncat-o.
you her have thrown-her
c eu cind am luat
that I when her have taken
(ii)
L-am vzutu-l/o voi lua-o/l-a splatu-l/m-oi bucura-m
him-have [I] seen-him/ her will [I] take-her/ him-has washed-him/ myself-would [I] enjoy
myself
Examples (i) show that could appear in front of the auxiliary; in (ii) clitics appear twice, both in
the pre-auxiliary and the postverbal positions, but notably not in between the auxiliary and the
verb.
25
T h i s supposes the existence of a Morphological Component between S-structure and
Phonological Structure (see Halle (1989)).
^Consider the following examples, which illustrate the future tense paradigms constructed with
the subjunctive (see Chapter 1):
(i)
Am s- due acas.
[I] have s-him take home
'I'll take him home'
(ii)
s-1 due acas.
[I] s-him take home
'I'll take him home.'
(iii) *L-am s due acas. (compare (i))
(iv) *L-o s due acas. (compare (ii))
(i)-(ii) do not involve V-preposing to Comp, as indicated by the presence of s, which occupies
the Comp position, and by the fact that the clitic occupies the pre-verbal position. Since Vpreposing does not apply, the clitic does not incorporate to the verb, which may explain the
ungrammaticality of (iii)-(iv) if we assume that the rule - be it syntactic or phonological responsible for the pre-auxiliary position of the clitics in (48)a-b can only apply to merged clitics.
Infi) and the elements that have incorporated to it via Restructuring Incorporation
(the auxiliary):
(55)
Clitic climbing: Move a merged clitic to the front of the sequence

incorporated into its host.
Clitic climbing thus seems to be a morpho-phonological process that applies inside

the complex X constituents obtained as a result of Restructuring and Merging. The
syntactic component of the grammar does not seem to play a role in the rule of clitic
climbing itself, but only in producing the conditions of its application.
It would be interesting to know whether the other data analyzed in terms of clitic
climbing (see Rizzi (1976, 1982); Kayne (1989)) obey these relatively strict
conditions. It seems reasonable to assume that clitics are syntactically inert
elements: they are placed in a certain position, but are not able to move further in the
syntax (this is consistent with the idea that clitics are some kind of bound
morphemes). They can merge and climb, but both of these processes are drastically
constrained: merging applies under strict adjacency and only in contexts where an
ECP violation would otherwise arise, and climbing can only affect merged clitics
and apply inside complex X elements. All other reorderings of clitic clusters are
due to the movement of the host, and not to that of the clitic itself.
To sum up, the apparently idiosyncratic distribution of can be directly captured
by the general principles of cliticization if we assume the hypothesis concerning
Romanian auxiliary structures (see (51)) proposed in Chapter 1: the lexical verb is
preposed via an application of Move I-to-C, and the stranded pronominal clitics are
necessarily subject to Merging.
Let us now recall that we have a test for Merging at our disposal: merged clitics
are necessarily phonological clitics (see Section 2.3.4.). If our analysis is correct,
we expect the clitics in auxiliary structures to show obligatory phonological
cliticization, and this is indeed the case. What is even more striking is that the preauxiliary clitics themselves display obligatory phonological cliticization, on a par
with postverbal clitics, whereas pre-verbal clitics display optional phonological
cliticization. The impossibility of (49)c contrasts with (49)a-b; the second
alternative in (49)a-b is possible, though not obligatory, depending on the
phonological environment (7 - is possible instead of il in (49)a because the verb
following the clitic begins with an unstressed vowel; compare (49)b, where am is
monosyllabic and therefore bears the stress).
Let us consider next the distribution of clitic adverbs. Since they adjoin directly
to Infi, and not to a projection of Infi (see Section 2.3.1.) they are taken along by
the V-preposing rule; therefore clitic adverbs cannot end up in the postverbal
position, but preserve their preverbal position and thus appear in between the
auxiliary and the verb, as can be observed in (52) and (56)a:
(56) a. a mai/i minca
[I] would still/ also eat
b. *mai/$i aminca
c. *a minca mai/$i
To sum up, the proposed hypothesis concerning the structure underlying Romanian
auxiliary constructions allows us to derive without stipulation the very strict linear
order shown in (28), repeated here:
(28)
Neg - (Pron) - Auxi - Adv - Aux2 - V - (Pron)
The important fact about this linear order is that the adverb and the pronominal
clitics are not adjacent to each other, as they are in non-auxiliary constructions
(Pron Adv V). The reordering in (28) is exactly what we expect under the
hypothesis that the lexical verb is proposed via Move I-to-C, a rule which takes
clitic adverbs along and strands pronominal clitics.
Consider now the concurrent hypothesis in (50), which seems to easily
accomodate the position of pre-auxiliaiy clitics. They are adjoined to Infi (or to IP);
the postverbal clitic 'her' occupies a syntactically irrelevant position. Under this
analysis the following questions are left unanswered: (a) Why is phonological
cliticization obligatory? (b) Why is the order Pron Adv Aux Vimpossible? (c) Why
are the orders Aux Adv V Pron and Pron Aux Adv Vcorrect? The first question
refers to the contrast shown in (49)b and (49)c, which indicates that phonological
cliticization is obligatory. Since phonological cliticization has been analyzed above
as an overt manifestation of clitic merging, this means that clitic merging necessarily
applies in auxiliary constructions, which in turn means that V-preposing necessarily
applies. But this generalization cannot be captured under the structural hypothesis
given in (50) because in this case no V-preposing applies.
Let me now comment briefly on the points in (b) and (c), which are related: if it
is correct to assume that pronominal clitics adjoin to (the IP constitutent headed by)
a "high" Infi node, then we would expect adverbial clitics to be able to adjoin to that
same Infi node. The predicted linear order would be *Pron Adv Aux V, but this
sequence is completely ungrammatical. One could of course stipulate that clitic
adverbs necessarily attach to lexical verbs (this would derive the correct Pron Aux
Adv V), but this is incorrect, as indicated by the impossibility of (57):
(57)
*pot mai/ i cinta

[I] can still/ also sing
If adverbial clitics attached to lexical verbs, nothing could rule (57) out.
According to the analysis proposed here, the ungrammaticality of (57) is due to
the fact that the modal a putea 'can, may' does not govern a CP/IP complement, but
a VP; therefore there is no "low" Infi node to which the adverb could attach. Given
the idea that pronominal and adverbial clitics attach to the same I(P), the
ungrammaticality of (58) is also correctly expected:
(58)
*pot vedea-o
[I] can see-her
2. 4. 2. Auxiliary inversion and endoclitic pronouns

In Section 1.4. of Chapter 1,1 proposed an analysis of the inverted paradigms of
the type illustrated in (59), where the lexical verb precedes the auxiliary. The
proposed analysis relies on the rule of Move I-to-C; auxiliary inversion and clitic
inversion thus represent two instantiations of the same rule.
We are now in a position to be more precise concerning the derivation of
inverted sequences which present endoclitic pronouns (see (59)). Given the
proposed hypothesis concerning the structure of auxiliary configurations and the

conditions on Move I-to-C, we may assume that Move I applies in two steps: we
start with a string of the form Aux [ Compfoppron [ V-/...]]] (obtained by the
rule of V to I movement); (V+)I moves to the embedded Comp, bypassing the
pronominal clitic, resulting in the sequence Aux V+I-pron; V+I-pron then moves to
the higher Comp, past the Aux node, resulting in V+I-pron-Aux, characterized by
endoclisis of the pronoun and enclisis of the auxiliary: 27
(59)
V-I-pron-Aux t A u x [ c [ c ty-i-pronltr W i
- -t v ]]]
pedepsi-l-a$
punish-him-would-lst
The dotted lines indicate the leftward merging of pronominal and auxiliary clitics, to
be distinguished from the standard head to head movement indicated by continuous
lines. What interests us here are the last two operations, namely the movement of
vzutu-I past the auxiliary am: the string ty-i-pron is properly governed because
the auxiliary has cliticized to the left, thus avoiding a potential ECP violation. Note
that the fact that on the last step the clitic is taken along (and not bypassed by the
verb, as on the second step) is to be expected given our analysis: as a result of Vpreposing, the clitic merges with the verb on its left and therefore can no longer be
left behind.
Conclusions
To summarize, the main distributional characteristics of Romanian clitic clusters
have been accounted for by assuming a syntactic theory of clitics, according to
which syntactic clitics are X elements that are subject to Functional Coindexation
and/or Restructuring Incorporation. Clitics such as conjunctions and the negative
adverb are generated in functional head positions, whereas pronominal and
adverbial clitics adjoin to (I)P. The hierarchical configurations underlying clitic
clusters are constrained by general principles such as C-command (between the
clitic and its trace, in case there is any), as well as by conditions depending on the
syntactic category (N, Adv or V) of each clitic. Since syntactic clitics occupy a
syntactic position which is distinct from the position of the host, clitic clusters allow
for certain internal reorderings, which have been analyzed as being due to a rule of
V-preposing (which may bypass not only pronominal clitics, but also clitic
auxiliaries). This rule triggers clitic merging, which gives rise to rigid constituents:
a merged clitic leaves its IP-adjoined position and merges with the verb, and
27
According to this analysis, V-preposing is local, on both the first and the second step of the
derivation. This analysis cannot cover examples such as ascultatu voi l-a(i vreodat 'listened you
him-have some time', which are sometimes quoted in the literature (see Rivero (1988a, to
appear)). I suspect that these (very marginal) examples are due to some kind of analogical
interaction with other constructions.
therefore can no longer be stranded. Somewhat paradoxically, a merged clitic - and

only a merged clitic - seems to be able to climb up over a string of clitics (and thus
end up in the pre-auxiliary position). Whether this rule applies in the syntax or in
the phonology is an open problem.
Appendix: A diachronic note: early Romance inverted conjugations
According to Meyer-Lbke's version of Wackernagel's law, weak pronouns were
illicit in initial position in early Romance languages. This impossibility was
correlated with the fact that early Romance was characterized by enclisis: clitics
could not attach to the right, but only to the left; they could appear on the left of the
verb only if a phonological host was present on their left. Otherwise, i.e. whenever
the clitic was sentence initial, the verb itself had to serve as a phonological host, and
therefore had to stand on the left of the clitic. 28 It is reasonable to assume that
Wackernagel's law relies on the rule of V-preposing (more precisely Move Infi),
which strands clitics.
This rule was still productive in Romanian at the beginning of this century: the
reflexive paradigm in (60) is borrowed from H. Tiktin's (1891 [1945]: 123)
Gramatica romn, in which these inverted paradigms are systematically indicated,
as variants of the non inverted conjugations (see (61)):
(60)
(61)
miru-m/ miri-te / mir-se / mirm u-ne / mirap-v

wonder-me [I] / wonder-you [you] / wonder-himself [he] / wonder-us [we]
mmir/te mm/se mir/ne mirm / v mirap/se mir
[I] me wonder / [you] you wonder....
This late survival of inverted conjugations, which disappeared quite early in the
other Romance languages (pre-literary period for French, 6th-7th century), may be
due to the fact that until the 17th century Romanian displayed only the series of
clitic pronouns illustrated in (43), which had to cliticize phonologically onto another
word (compare the clitics in (41), which are syntactic clitics that need not cliticize
phonologically). But the conditions on rightward phonological cliticization are quite
restrictive: in particular it cannot apply if the word starts with a consonant. Compare
leftward cliticization, which can trigger the insertion of a final vowel (see 1-am vzut
vs vzutu-1-am), a phenomenon comparable to the insertion of t in the French
subject clitic inversion, see va-t-il partir?, etc. V-preposing may have been a means
of providing a host on the left of the clitic. It is only during the 17th century that the
"syntactic non phonological" clitics given in (41) appeared, by the development of
the prothetic vowel i. Henceforth, the rule of V-preposing is no longer required and
it gradually disappears. In present day Romanian the paradigm in (60) is completely
obsolete (almost unrecognizable); however, this type of construction survives (in
highly literary style) in subjunctives (see (37)b above) and in compound tenses:
2Ûnder its current formulation, Wackernagel's law says that the inverted conjugations were
bound to appear in case clitics were sentence initial; it does not say that they could not appear in
contexts in which sentence initial XPs (which presumably occupy the (Spec, CP) slot) were
present. Within the X' theory proposed in Chomsky (1986b), the C position is available even if
the (Spec, CP) slot is filled by wh-elements.
(62)
miratu-m-am
miratu-te-ai...
wondered-me-have [I] / wondered-you-have [you]..

Because of the strict locality that characterizes it, V-preposing may give us
indications concerning sentence structure: since the landing site of this rule is
Comp, a sentence in which V-preposing applies is necessarily characterized by the
adjacency between Comp and the verb cluster. Since V-preposing did apply in early
Romance languages quite generally in main finite clauses, we are led to the
conclusion that the sentence structure of that early period of Romance was
characterized by the initial position of the verb cluster. In particular, we must
assume that the subject NP did not intervene between the verb cluster and the Comp
position. This constraint on V-preposing is, of course, interesting only with respect
to empty subjects (lexical subjects are trivially excluded because in this case the
adjacency requirement is clearly violated). The question is then whether (63) is licit
in case the NP subject is empty:
(63)
[compVHipNPcltv]
I
I
The answer rests on the visibility of empty categories. It is probably reasonable to

assume that empty or null subjects of type pro (be they referential or dummy) are
visible for syntactic rules, and as such, they are illicit in the subject position in (63).
This is of course a mere suggestion; in order to settle the question we would have
to investigate other environments in which the visibility of pro is relevant. If (63) is
indeed an illicit configuration, we are led to assume that a language that allows for
V-preposing in finite clauses - in particular late 19th century Romanian- is a Vinitial language at S-structure; otherwise, the pro under [,] would violate the
postulated adjacency requirement on the merging of the clitic with the preposed V;
and lack of merging would lead to an ECP violation.
3. The constituent structure of infinitives and subjunctives
3. 1. The constituent structure of infinitival clauses

Romanian grammars generally distinguish between three infinitives. The "long"
infinitive in -re has become a truly nominal form in modern Romanian (dup
plecarea lui 'after departure-the his') and we are not going to examine it here. The
"short" infinitive takes on two different forms: it can be preceded by the particle a,
or it can lack it, be "bare".
We have already dealt with bare infinitives in Chapter 1, while examining
auxiliary structures:
(1)
(2)
Copiii nu-1 vor (*a) respecta.

the children not-him will (*to) respect
Copiii nu 1-ar (*a) respecta.
the children not him-would (*to) respect
These examples have been analyzed as involving auxiliary verbs that take CP
complements 1 characterized by Move (V-)Infl to Comp; since at S-structure the
Comp position is occupied by the preposed inflected verb, the obligatory absence
ofa is expected if we assume that this particle normally occupies the Comp
position. In this section further evidence will be provided in favour of this
hypothesis.
3. 1. 1. The categonal status ofa

The infinitival particle a is systematically ambiguous between Infi and Comp. This
ambiguous status can easily be brought out by showing that a is comparable to both
to in English and de/di in French and Italian (see Huot (1977, 1981); Kayne (1984);
Rizzi (1982)), which are currently analyzed as Infi and Comp respectively. The
Romanian particle thus appears to lie outside the dichotomy Comp vs Infi, and this
raises the following question of comparative syntax: what is the abstract property of
Romanian that has as a consequence the existence of ambiguous Comp/Infl
elements such as a (the same is true of the subjunctive particle s, see 3.2. below),
which are absent from the other Romance languages and from English?
1
The bare infinitive in (l)-(2) should be distinguished from the one that shows up after a putea 'to
can':
(i)
pot vedea.
[I] her can see
The distribution of clitics, as well as a number of other characteristics, indicate that the bare
infinitive in (i) is not a CP, but a VP complement (see Chapter 1).
The constituent structure of infinitives and subjunctives 83
3. 1. 1. 1. is an Infi element
The Infi status of a is supported by a morphological observation: Romanian
infinitives do not present any specific morphological inflection 2 that could be
analyzed as the realization of Infi: -a, -i or -e in a mine 'to eat1, a cid 'to read', a
spune 'to say', belong to the lexical root of these verbs (see voi mincap 'you eat',
voi citip 'you read', voi spunep 'you say'). It would then be reasonable to assume
that the absence of infinitival verbal inflections is made up for by a different
realization of Infi, the particle a; originally a preposition (going back to the Latin
ad), a is nowadays exclusively an infinitive marker. Romanian infinitives would
then appear to be comparable to English infinitives, which present a prepositional
Infi element, to, correlated with the absence of morphological inflections on the
verb.
The analogy between a and to infinitives is also favoured by certain aspects of
their distribution; they may appear after certain aspectuals and in subject clauses:
(3)
a. De-abia a inceput a vorbi.

just has [he/she] started to speak
b. A citi e bucune.
to read is a joy
These examples indicate that a infinitives, just like to infinitives, are sentential
projections which occupy argument positions. Compare bare infinitives, which, in
both English and Romanian, do not count as arguments, but only as verbal
projections, and therefore appear as complements of auxiliary verbs. To say that a
infinitives count as sentential projections does not settle the status of a: it could be
generated either under Infi, as to in English, or under Comp, as de in French. The
former hypothesis is supported by the following observation: unlike de, and like to,
the Romanian particle necessarily accompanies the infinitive in the examples above.
If we assumed a to be under Comp, we would expect it to be absent (on a par with
de in French), because infinitival Comp positions are in general empty in
environments of this type. Infinitival Infi nodes on the other hand are in general not
empty.3
Another potential argument in favour of the Infi status of a is related to raising
configurations. Kayne (1984) has analyzed the impossibility of de in the French
example in (4) as being due to the fact that de is a Comp element whose CP
projection constitutes a governing category for the embedded subject position;
therefore an NP-trace that occupies this position cannot be bound by the raised
subject, as required by principle A of binding theory:
(4)
Jean s'est trouv6 (*d) 'etre l-bas.

'John happened to be there.'
^Recall that the "long infinitives" in -are have become nominal forms; compare -r infinitives in
French.
3are infinitives are not IPs headed by an empty Infi, but either VPs (in English; cf also footnote
1 for Romanian) or V(+I)-headed CPs (in Romanian).
In the English gloss to is allowed, which is expected under the hypothesis that to is
under Infi: infinitival Infi does not count as a governor for the NP subject, whose
governing category is therefore the main clause. We could then be enclined to adopt
the same analysis for the Romanian example in (5), which contrasts with (4), and
seems parallel to its English gloss:
(5)
Copiii s-au nimerit a fi acolo.
The children happened to be there.'

3. 1. 1. 2. is a Comp element
Let us finally mention the strong coherence between a and the verb, which is
probably the most direct evidence that seems to support the Infi status of a. The
only elements that can intervene between a and the verb are clitic elements such as
the negative particle nu, pronominal and adverbial clitics (see (6)a). Any other
intervening element is prohibited, as shown in (6)b; compare the French example in
(6)d, borrowed from Pollock (1989):
(6)
a. A nu mai ajuta ar fi
prostie.
to not him again help would be stupid

b.
*avreodatgindi
to sometimes think
c. a gindi
vreodat
d. peine parier l'italien apres cinq ans d'tudes dnote un manque de don
pour les langues
hardly to speak Italian after five years study denotes lack of gift for
languages
If we assume adverbs such as peine 'hardly' to be generated in a pre-VP position,
the word order in the French example in (6)d can be analyzed as being due to the
fact that in French infinitives the verb does not raise to Infi (see Pollock (1989)).
The Romanian example in (6)c could then be analyzed as involving V-raising to
Infi, past the adverb.
This analysis in fact undermines the idea that a is under Infi, because no position
is available in between Infi and VP, as a landing site for the raised verb. Recall
indeed that a restrictive theory of incorporation has been assumed here (see
Chapters 1 and 2), which disallows adjunction for Head Movement:4 this means
that the verb cannot raise and adjoin to a. According to the theory adopted here, an
incorporated sequence may be obtained in two ways: (a) affix incorporation is
triggered by morphological subcategorization (see Lieber (1980)); (b) cliticization
relies on Restructuring Incorporation (see Chapter 2), a reanalysis mechanism that
affects adjacent functional elements that occupy distinct syntactic positions. For a
number of reasons that we have already discussed with respect to Romanian
auxiliaries (see Chapter 1), the particle a cannot be analyzed as an affix; in other
words it presents no morphologically subcategorized position to which the verb
4
I agree with Rizzi and Roberts (1989) that the Clitic Placement of pronominals constitutes an
exception to this restrictive theory. This is not too problematic, since it is not clear whether Clitic
Placement should be viewed as a movement rule or as base adjunction.
The constituent structure of infinitives and subjunctives
85
might raise. We are thus left with the second type of incorporation, one for which
we need a syntactic landing site for the raised V.
One may of course assume two Infi positions, one for a and the other one for the
raised verb, but this would constitute a significant weakening of our X' theory. This
solution would also raise major difficulties for comparative syntax, because it
would require an explanation of why Romanian has at its disposal two Infi nodes,5
as opposed to English and French. These problems could be solved if we assumed
that a is not dominated by Infi but by Comp: Infi would then be available for the
verb to raise to.
Consider next the relative position of a/to and the negative adverbs nu/not
(7)
a. a nu vorbi
to not speak
b. *nu a vorbi
not to speak
In Romanian nu necessarily appears between a and the verb; it cannot come in front
of a. This distribution constitutes a further argument in favour of the Comp status
of a: the ungrammaticality in (7)b can be understood if we assume that the
projection headed by a constitutes a barrier for the relation between the negative
head and the variable it binds in IP. We know that IP does not constitute a barrier
for this relation: nu normally precedes the elements which are generated under Infi.
CP on the other hand does constitute a barrier for the relation underlying negative
quantification:
(8)
*tiu nu c a plecat
[I] know not that [he] has left
If we take a to be under Comp, the ungrammaticality of (7b) is comparable to that

of (8). We are then led to the conclusion that a does not head an IP projection, but
rather a CP projection. Compare the Romanian examples and their English glosses:
the position of not is not completely understood,6 but whatever analysis we are led
to adopt, we cannot assume that to is in Comp.
A further interesting contrast between Romanian and English concerns the
example in (9), to be compared with its English gloss:
(9)
A plecat fr a spune vorb.

[he/she] left without to say a word
The ungrammaticality of the English gloss may be analyzed as being due to a

violation of Stowell's (1981) Case Resistance Principle: to infinitives are IP
constituents which are verbal in nature and as such cannot show up in a position to
5
Note that for Romanian indicatives we need only one Infi node, which raises further questions,
concerning the special behavior of infinitives (and subjunctives, see 3.2.). Are we allowed to
postulate different configurations for IP, depending on the verbal mood? We are bound to say
"No" if we try to maintain a constrained theory of syntax.
6
Under the assumption that to is under Infi, in the same position as modals, we expect to not go
(parallel to will not go), which is ungrammatical.
which Case is assigned (by the preposition). The grammaticality of the Romanian
example can be understood if we assume a infinitives to be CP constituents, which
as such are allowed to take on a nominal status.
The hypothesis that a is under Comp is further supported by the data in (10); a
violation of the doubly filled Comp filter may be invoked, which prohibits the
coexistence of wh-elements (i.e., relative and interrogative pronouns) with [-WH]
Comp elements (i.e., subordinating conjunctions):
(10)
a. *Are cu cine a se distra.

[he/she] has with whom to divert himself/ herself
b. *Nu u unde a pleca.
[I] do not know where to go
The English examples in (11) are grammatical, because tois an Infi element:
(11)
a. I don't know with whom to send her to the sea-side.

b. I am looking for a girl with whom to go to the sea-side.
The doubly filled Comp filter operates in Romanian, as indicated by the following
impossibilities:
(12)
a. * Nu mi-ai spus c unde ai fost ieri.

[You] not me-have said that where [you] have been yesterday
b. *Nu mi-ai spus unde c ai fost ieri.
[You] not me-have said where that [you] have been yesterday
c. *Nu mi-ai spus ca unde Maria s piece.
[You] not me-have said that where Mary s 7 leave-subjunctive
d. *Nu mi-ai spus unde ca Maria s piece.
[You] not me-have said where that Mary s leave-subjunctive
e. * Caut fatcacu care Maria s piece la mare.
[I] am looking for a girl that with whom Mary s go-subjunctive to the
sea-side
f. * Caut fat cu care ca Maria s piece la mare.
[I] am looking for a girl with whom that Mary s go-subjunctive to the
sea-side
Examples (12) become correct if the subordinating conjunctions are deleted:

(13)
a/b.
e/f.
Nu mi-ai spus unde ai fost ieri.

Caut fat cu care Maria s piece la mare.
Likewise, the examples in (10) are grammatical if a is deleted:
For the status of the subjunctive particle s see 3.2.
(14) a. Are cu cine se distra

[he/she] has with whom divert himself/ herself
b. Nu gtiu uncle pleca.
[I do] not know where leave
This data seems to indicate quite clearly that (10) should be analyzed as a doubly
filled Comp violation. Therefore the structure of these examples cannot be (10')a,
where a is the head of IP, but rather (10")a, where a is in Comp:
(10') a *are [spec, CP cu c i n e l t c ^ o m P tlP a se distra]
[he/she] has with whom to divert himself/ herself
(10") a *are [ S p e C ) C P cu cine] [[c o m p a l tlP s e distra]]
3. 1.2. The structure of infinitival IP constituents
3. 1.2. 1. The adjacency between Comp and Infi
The data discussed above indicate that a has an ambiguous status, pertaining both to
Infi and to Comp. The ambiguous status of a is extremely significant from the
comparative point of view: ambiguous particles of this type do not exist in the other
Romance languages,9 nor in English, but do exist in VSO languages such as
Welsh.10 We may then try to establish a relation between the existence of this type
of ambiguous element and the structure of IP constituents.
The central hypothesis of the analysis to be proposed below is that the ambiguity
of a is due to the fact that Comp and Infi are adjacent to each other, and so they are
if we assume that Romanian IP constituents are of the type shown in (15), a
representation which is supported by independent evidence, as shown in Chapters 1
and 2.
În (14) the clitics not only can, but they must attach to the bare infinitive:
(i)
*se are cu cine distra
(same as (14)a)
(ii)
*nu }tiu cu cine trimite la mare
[I do] not her know with whom send to the seaside
This distribution is not surprising, because the (Spec, CP) node being occupied by a wh-element,
it determines a maximal projection of a sentential type, over whose boundary the clitic cannot
climb. The underlying structure of (14) would be an IP constituent governed by an empty Comp;
the wh-phrase occupies the (Spec, CP) position. The type of bare infinitive that shows up in (14)
thus appears to be different both from the one in auxiliary structures, and from the one that
appears after a putea 'can' (see footnote 1).
9ut see Rizzi's (1982) analysis of di.
lOwelsh presents elements introducing embedded tensed clauses (y 'that') and relative clauses (a
'who' and y 'that') which have been analyzed as preverbal particles (see Harlow (1983); Rouveret
(1987, 1990)) on the basis of constituency tests that indicate that they form a constituent with the
following verb.
(15) CP
XP
c
c
IP
ENFL
VP
V-INFL
NP&
V'
tv
In (15) the NP subject is generated as a sister of V', and stays in that position at Sstructure ((Spec, IP), which we have not represented, is an A'-position which in
indicatives is accessible to left dislocated elements; for reasons to be presented in
3.2., this position is not generated in infinitives and subjunctives). The verb moves
to INFL (or more precisely to Tense); 11 a is generated under Comp, and its Infi
characteristics are due to the fact that Comp is adjacent to Infi: 12 these positions
become indistinguishable, due to the rule of Functional Coindexation introduced in
the previous chapters.13 I delay a precise implementation of this idea till Section
3.2.2., when a unifying account of infinitivals and subjunctives will be proposed.
The IP structure characteristic of English and French differs from (15) in that at
S-structure the NP subject appears under (Spec, IP), thus separating Infi from
Comp. Since Comp and Infi are not adjacent,14 Functional Coindexation cannot
apply, so that functional elements such as to or de will unambiguously behave as
either Infi or Comp.
Let us now come back to the examples in (6), which illustrate an important
difference between Romanian on the one hand, and English and French on the
other. According to Pollock (1989), French infinitives do not raise out of VP (to
1
Romanian infinitives do not present any Tense contrast (a minca vs a fi mincat 'to eat/ to have
eaten' is an aspect contrast), and therefore we may be inclined to think that they lack Tense
features. This is probably a wrong conclusion, because it is reasonable to think that verbal
projections are necessarily governed by Tense. In other words,, we may assume that nominal and
verbal projections do not differ from each other by intrinsic features that would characterize the
head of the projection itself; NPs and VPs would be intrinsically indistinguishable, say XPs.
Their NP vs VP status would be due to the difference in the functional categories that govern
them: VPs would be XPs governed by Tense; NPs would be XPs governed by Det. Coming back
to Romanian infinitives, they count as verbal projections, and therefore must be assumed to be
governed by an abstract Tense element (notated Infi here), even if this element is phonetically
empty.
12
Note that independently of the exact status of a, its projection (i.e., a infinitives) counts as a
CP projection: on the assumption that a is under Infi, Comp is necessarily empty; under Haider's
(1988) theory, this is a case of "matching projection" of type CPAP.
^Functional Coindexation: Coindex adjacent functional X categories.
14
This analysis supposes that the adjacency condition on Functional Coindexation is sensitive to
empty categories such as PRO or NP-trace.
89
Infi). 15 If the structure in (15) is correct for Romanian infinitives, we must concede
that they necessarily raise out of VP, 1 6 on a par with finite verbs.
This peculiarity of Romanian infinitives could be derived as a consequence of
the structure in (15), if we assume that Affix-hopping is local, and in particular that
it cannot bypass an empty NP subject; therefore, given the position of the NP
subject in (15), the raising of the verb to Infi is the only way for Infi to attach to the
verb, and this attachment is a central morphosyntactic requirement (at S-structure
Infi cannot surface separated from V). Compare the situation of infinitival clauses
in a language like French, characterized (according to Sportiche (1988)) by the fact
that at S-structure Infi is separated from the verb only by the trace of the NP subject
that has raised to (Spec, IP); this trace may be assumed to be invisible for a number
of syntactic phenomena, 17 among which Affix-Hopping. This may explain why the
verb can stay inside VP: the affix is allowed to climb down to V over the trace of
the subject.
3. 1.2. 2. Lexical subjects in infinitives
The distribution of lexical subjects in infinitives provides evidence in favour of the
hypothesis that (15) is the correct underlying structure of Romanian IP constituents.
Romanian infinitives do not present any AGR feature (as opposed to the
Portuguese inflected infinitive), but they nevertheless take lexical subjects:
(16)
a. Am plecat inainte de a ajunge mama.

[I] have left before of to arrive mother
b. Am plecat inainte de a ajunge ea.
[I] have left before of to arrive she
For nominal subjects (see (16)a), morphological inflections do not distinguish

between Nominative and Accusative Case, but pronominals clearly indicate that
subjects of infinitival clauses are marked for Nominative Case (see (16)b).
The distribution of lexical subjects in Romanian infinitives is highly constrained:
they can only appear postverbally. Compare (16) with (17):
(17)
a. *Am plecat inainte de mama a ajunge.

(I) left before mother to come,
b. *Am plecat inainte de a mama ajunge.
These examples show that a preverbal subject is ungrammatical, independent of the

exact position occupied by a: since preverbal subjects are assumed to stand under
(Spec, IP), the particle a would be under Infi in (17)a, and under Comp in (17)b.
15
This behaviour contrasts on the one hand with finite lexical verbs, which in French necessarily
raise to Infi, and on the other with auxiliaries such as have and be, which are allowed to raise to
Infi only in infinitives.
16
For Italian see Belletti (1990).
17
T h e fact that this trace is invisible may be related to the status of the position that it occupies:
one may assume that it falls outside the A/A' distinction: it is not an -position, if A-positions
are defined as potential Case positions; but it is not an A'-position either.
The constraints that govern Nominative Case assignment in Romanian infinitives

could be taken care of by two possible hypotheses: (a) Nominative Case is assigned
in the preverbal position (as in French and English). We should further assume that
in structures marked [-Tense], [-AGR] the lexical subject is obligatorily moved to
the postverbal position; (b) Nominative Case is assigned in the postverbal position;
in sentences marked [+AGR] an optional rule can apply, which moves the subject
to the preverbal position (see preverbal subjects in indicatives and subjunctives).
The second hypothesis will be assumed, which is obviously simpler, since an
obligatory movement rule is dispensed with. The optional movement of the NP
subject to the front position (in sentences marked [+AGR]) can be analyzed as a
case of Clitic Left Dislocation (cf Chapter 6), which applies to subjects and nonsubjects under similar conditions. The solution in (b) will also allow us to account
for another striking peculiarity of Romanian: the fact that in infinitives (and
subjunctives) there is no complementary distribution between lexical subjects on the
one hand, and controlled null subjects and traces of raised subjects on the other.
3. 1.2. 3. Remarks on Nominative Case assignment
In the GB framework it is generally assumed that Nominative Case is assigned by
an Infi element that dominates AGR and Tense, or at least one of these features (see
Chomsky (1981)). The problem is that under a definition of government in terms of
strict C-command (see Reinhart (1976)), Infi can assign Nominative case under
government in (15), but not in a structure where the NP subject occupies the (Spec,
IP) position (see English and French). We may then assume that in English and
French, Nominative Case is assigned by means of the chain made up of the NP
subject and the AGR features on the verb. We thus distinguish between (a)
Nominative Case assignment under government by Infi and (b) the transmission of
Nominative Case from AGR (by Spec-Head agreement).
The hypothesis that AGR does not assign Nominative Case (because of its
nominal nature, and by Stowell's Case Resistance principle AGR cannot assign
Case), but rather transfers it to the subject NP, raises two important questions: a)
How does AGR take Nominative Case; b)Why is Nominative Case allowed to be
transferred from AGR to the NP subject?
As an answer to (a), we may assume that AGR is inherently marked for
Nominative Case, just as indirect object clitics are inherently marked for Dative case
(see Chapter 6). The question in (b) supposes that the Case features on AGR are
not sufficient for the Case filter; in other words we assume that the Case filter does
not operate at the level of th-chains but rather at the level of the nominal elements
that participate in the chain: each of them must bear Case, even if they belong to the
same th-chain.18 If this is correct we have to understand why Nominative Case, as
opposed to Objective Case, can be shared by the elements belonging to the same thchain. Our answer is a simple suggestion: Case can be transmitted inside a th-chain,
l^This hypothesis is necessary in order to account for the fact that a clitic doubled direct object is
necessarily preceded by a preposition, which may be lacking if the direct object is not clitic
doubled: the role of the preposition would be to assign Case to the direct object in those contexts
in which the Case features are realized on the clitic, and hence are no longer available for the
object NP (see Jaeggli's (1982) restatement of Kayne's generalization).
but only towards a position which is assigned no Case under government; the Spec
position is precisely such a position.
Since in SVO languages nominative Case cannot be assigned under government,
the Spec-head agreement strategy is the only possible one: the AGR features on the
verb take inherent Case, which can be transferred to the subject NP under (Spec,
IP). Compare clitic doubling chains: Objective case is taken by the clitic, and it
cannot be transferred to the direct object position, because this position is not a
Spec position (it is normally assigned Case under government); hence the necessity
of a preposition which assigns Case to the doubled direct object.
One crucial element of this proposal is that AGR features on the verb are not
required for Nominative case assignment under government. An interesting piece of
corroborating evidence comes from Italian infinitives, which are a l l o w ^ to take
lexical subjects only if the Aux-to-Comp rule applies (see Rizzi (1982)), which
moves the auxiliary past the NP subject. Recall that in Italian, Nominative Case is
normally assigned in the preverbal position (see Rizzi (1982)). Since this
assignment depends on the existence of AGR features on the verb, it cannot apply
in Italian infinitives. The Aux-to-Comp rule has as a result a government
configuration, which allows Nominative Case assignment even if AGR features are
absent.
Now compare the distribution of lexical subjects in Romanian infinitives: no
Aux-to-Comp or AGR features are necessary, which provides evidence in favour
of the structure in (15), in which Nominative case is assigned under government.
3. 1. 3. Control structures
Another major problem of Romanian grammar will now be considered: infinitives
allow both lexical subjects and obligatory control:
(18) a. Am inceput a citi "Cei trei mupchetari".
[I] have started to read "The TTiree musketeers"
b. Am mincat inainte de a pleca.
[I] have eaten before of to leave
ate before I left.'
c. Ion a plecat inainte de a ajunge mama acas.
John has left before of to arrive mother home
'John left before mother arrived home.'
In (18)c a lexical subject is allowed. This possibility is difficult to reconcile with the
idea that in (18)a-b the subject is PRO. Compare French and English, which are
characterized by the complementary distribution between lexical subjects (which
can only show up in finite clauses) and PRO (which can only appear in non-finite
clauses). It is generally assumed that this complementary distribution is the only
theoretical possibility: lexical subjects must take Case and in order to do so they
have to occupy governed positions, whereas PRO occupies an ungovemed position
(this follows from its being specified as both an anaphor and a pronoun, see the
"PRO theorem" in Chomsky (1981)).
Let us then try to account for the Romanian data without introducing a theoretical
inconsistency: we should not admit, for instance, positions that are both governed
(which would allow for lexical subjects) and ungovemed (which would allow for
PRO). Two types of solution can be imagined: (a) one possibility would be to
assume that the structure underlying (18)c is different from that underlying (18)a-b;
(b) the second alternative is to admit that in Romanian infinitives the controlled
subject is not PRO.
We shall rapidly outline an implementation of the first solution, and show that it
is inadequate. The structure in (15), proposed above, can be assumed for Romanian
sentences that contain postverbal lexical subjects or pro, but PRO cannot be
supposed to appear under NPS, since this position is governed by (V-)INFL. It is
however possible to bring a different position into play, one not yet indicated,
namely (Spec, IP):
(15')
NP
VP
NPc
V-I
A
v;
I
tv
NPo
By adopting, as we have so far, a strict definition of c-command (in terms of

branching nodes), the (Spec, IP) position is governed by no element in IP, 19 and
consequentely PRO is legitimate in this position.
This type of structure solves our original problem, while raising another: by
admitting (151) we admit that there exist two -positions for the subject, (Spec, VP)
and (Spec, IP). Not only is this outcome undesirable on conceptual grounds,20 but
we also end up with a (PROi, ei) chain (with PRO under (Spec, IP) and e under
(Spec, VP)), which is of an unknown type.
We could then admit two possible positions for subjects, out of which only one
would be realized in a given sentence. This possibility can be made compatible with
our theoretical framework: Specifier positions are not necessarily instantiated and
the extended projection principle is correctly satisfied by either (Spec, VP) or by
(Spec, IP); the first option would characterize lexical subjects, and the second one
PRO. However, the idea that the subject is allowed to choose its position depending
on its intrinsic features, certainly constitutes a weakening of the syntactic theory.
Moreover, there seems to be no independent evidence in favour of two distinct
positions for NP subjects in infinitives. The solution to the problem thus appears to
be a mere stipulation,21 designed to save the idea that in Romanian infinitives,
" l l i e same result can be obtained by assuming a directionality condition on government (see
Travis (1984)): in Romanian Infi would only govern rightwards.
20
Recall that contrary to Sportiche (1988) and Pollock (1989), we prefer to maintain that in an IP
domain one single -position for the NP subject is available.
21
Another difficulty concerns th-role assignment. If the external th-role is assigned to a specific
position, possibly under predication, how does PRO get its th-role, if (Spec, VP) is not
projected? We could assume that the external th-role is assigned to the highest NP in IP, and not
to a fixed position.
controlled subjects are PRO elements, despite the fact that lexical subjects are also
allowed.
We thus conclude that a structure like (15') cannot be the correct representation
of controlled infinitives in Romanian. Consequently, we must turn toward the
second possibility: controlled infinitival subjects in Romanian are not PRO
elements. This line of inquiry, which is independently needed to account for
controlled subjunctives, will lead us to develop a different theory, one in which
control effects do not depend on the presence of PRO. Following Manzini (1983),
Bouchard (1984) and Borer (1987), we shall define control as an anaphoric type of
relation (see Chapter 4). This approach will also allow us to account for subject
raising in Romanian infinitives (and subjunctives).
3. 2. The constituent structure of subjunctive clauses

3. 2. 1. The categorial status of s
The Romanian subjunctive is an analytic form, made up of the invariable particle s
followed by a verb which is inflected for mood, person and number:
(19)
eu s plec/tu s pleci/el s piece /noi s plecm,22 etc.

I s leave/ you s leave/ ... 23
The particle s has an ambiguous syntactic status: it functions both as a marker of

the subjunctive mood (some kind of inflectional prefix) and as a subordinating
conjunction, which occupies the Comp position. This ambiguous nature is
comparable to the systematic ambiguity of the infinitival particle a. Essentially the
same structural representation will be adopted: like a, the subjunctive particle s is
generated under Comp, but it is indistinguishable from Infi because Comp and Infi
are adjacent, and this allows Functional Coindexation and/or Restructuring
Incorporation to apply.
3. 2. 1. 1 S is an Infi element
The most obvious arguments in favour of the Infi status of s are related to
examples (20)a-b:
(20)
22
a. Vreau ca pin miine s termine Ion cartea asta.
Subjunctive inflections are identical to indicative inflections, with the exception of the third
person singular (see elpleac 'he leaves'). Besides the present subjunctive, Romanian also presents
an invariable perfect subjunctive, constructed with the perfect auxiliary fi "be' discussed in 1.6.:
(i)
eu / tu /el ...s fi mincat
I / you / he ... s be eaten
'that I / you... have eaten'
23
Since s does not present any counterpart in English, we are going to preserve it in the glosses.
The English reader may translate it by that (in sentence initial position), or leave it out altogether
(when s ispreceded by a dislocated constituent).
[I] want that until tomorrow s finish John this book

b. * Vreau ca pin miine s Ion termine cartea asta.
[I] want that until tomorrow sif John finish this book
In (20)a s does not occupy the leftmost position of the embedded clause, which is
taken by a complementizer-like element, ca; (20)b, on the other hand, illustrates the
strong coherence that exists between sif and the "verb cluster" (this term designates
the sequence made up of the verb accompanied by pronominal and adverbial
clitics). S necessarily precedes the other elements of the verb cluster, the maximal
string that may separate s i from the verb is Neg-cl-Adv-Aux,24 and these elements
are themselves strictly adjacent to the inflected verb (see Chapter 2):
(21)
a. Af vrea ca de miine s nu il mai ajup la treab.

[I] would want that starting with tomorrow s [you] not him again help
with [his] work
b. A vrea ca pe Ion s-1 vezi miine.
[I] would want that pe Ion s [you]-him see tomorrow
c. Af vrea ca Ion s $i traduc.
[I] would want that John s also translate
d. A vrea ca Ion s nu piece inainte de intoarcerea Manei.
[I] would want that John s not leave before the return MarieQgn
No other element can separate s from the verb, not even the subject (see (20)b).
The strict adjacency requirement that holds between s and the verb cluster may be
taken to indicate that sif belongs to the verb cluster. In other words, s is some kind
of Infi element.
Constituency tests such as coordination lend support to this claim:
(22)
a. Stiu c mama a plecat i Ion a rmas.

[I] know that mother has left and John has stayed
b. Vreau (ca miine) s piece mama i s rmin Ion.
[I] want (that tomorrow) s leave mother and s stay John
c. * Vreau (ca miine) s piece mama $i rmin Ion.
Example (22)a shows that complementizers such as c (which heads embedded

indicatives) need not be repeated in the second conjunct, which indicates that in
Romanian Comp elements are allowed to take a conjunction of IP's as a
complement. 25 The examples in (22)b and (22)c show that s must be repeated in
Aux position is occupied by the perfect auxiliary fi 'be', and under Adv we find a very
restricted class of clitic adverbs: mai 'again', prea 'too' (see Chapters 1 and 2). Note that
pronominal and adverbial clitics appear in the same order in the other verbal moods:
(i)
Pe Ion il }i vede primar.
pe John [she] him already sees mayor
John she already sees as mayor
(ii)
Pe Ion 1-au avansat.
pe John [they] him-have already promoted.
25
T h i s possibility is however not general across languages: *je sais [cpque [jptu viens] et
[jpMarie part]] know that you come and Mary leaves' (see Godard (1989))
the second conjunct. The ungrammaticality of (22)c can be understood if we

assume s to be an element which cliticizes on the verb (more precisely on a
projection of Infi); in (22)c this cliticization gives rise to a violation of the
coordinate structure constraint (see Kayne (1975: 101) 26 and Rizzi (1986b)). The
clitic status of s can be viewed as an argument in favour of its inflectional status,
under the hypothesis that Romanian clitics necessarily adjoin to (projections of) Infi
(see Chapter 2). But Comp elements could be assigned clitic status if they could be
shown to be subject to Functional Coindexation (see the definition of clitics given
in (33) of Chapter 2).
Further support for the proposal that s occurs under IP rather than CP is seen in
(23)a-c, which show that s is allowed to co-occur with wh-elements, unlike
standard complementizers like c:
(23) a. Am cu cine s plec.
[I] have with whom s [I] leave
b. Caut fat cu care s plec la munte.
(I) look for a girl with which s (I) leave for the mountains
c. Caut fata cu care (*c) pleac Ion la munte.
[I] look for the girl with which (*that) leaves John for the mountains
3. 2. 1. 2. Si is a Comp element
A number of other properties distinguish s from Infi particles: (a)s is invariable;
(b) s can head an embedded clause; (c) its position is leftmost, necessarily
preceding clitics and negation:27
(24)
a. Vreau s nu-1 mai intilnefti.

[I] want s [you] not-him again meet
b. * vreau nu s-1 mai intilneti
c. * vreau il s mai intilneti
d. * vreau nu-1 s mai mtflne$ti
The fact that s i is clause-initial in (24)a suggests that s i occupies the Comp position
(if we assumed s to stay under Infl, we would have to postulate an empty category
under Comp; or else we would have to assume an obligatory string vacuous
movement of s (V-I) into Comp).
According to a clear empirical generalization, the Neg head subcategorizes IP
(see Zanuttini (1989)), but not CP complements. By virtue of this generalization,
and on the assumption that s is under Comp, we expect the ungrammaticality of
(24)b, on a par with (25):
26
The ungrammaticality of (22)c would be parallel to (i)-(ii), borrowed from Kayne (1975):
(i)
*Paul la [dteste et considre comme b6te]
(ii)
*Jcan vous [parlera et pardonnera]
Kayne quotes grammatical examples such as Paul les lit et relit sans cesse Paul them reads and
rereads again and again', and suggests that they may be due to the fact that lire et relire seems to
be analyzed as some kind of complex verb.
27\Ve should also add that s goes back to the Latin conjunction si.
(25)
*$tiu nu c a scris Ion poena asta

[I] know not that has written John this poem
If we assumed s to be generated under Infi we would have to stipulate the relative

word order of s and nu in (24)a.
The hypothesis that s is under Comp also accounts for the impossibility
illustrated in (24)c. We may invoke a violation of the locality conditions on clitic
placement, since it is generally the case that clitic placement cannot cross a CP
boundary. The example in (24)d violates both the condition on clitic chains and that
on the position occupied by Neg with respect to Comp.
Consider next the following examples:
(26)
a. S triasc Romania.
s live Romania
'long live Romania'
b. S se intimple ce s-o intimpla.
s se arrive what se-may arrive
'arrive what may'
(27)
a. Triasc Romania.
live Romania
b. Intimple-se ce s-o intimpla.
arrive-se what se-may arrive
c. * S intimple-se ce s-o intimpla.
d. * Intimple-se s ce s-o intimpla.
There are two correlated differences between (26) and (27): the presence vs the
absence of the particle s and a difference in word order: in (26)b the pronominal
clitic se occupies the canonical clitic position, whereas in (27)b se necessarily
follows the verb. This data can be captured by a rule that moves the verb to the
initial position, and correlatively prohibits the insertion of s (see the
ungrammaticality of (27)c-d, due to the presence of s). This analysis suggests that
s is under C.
This argument is similar to den Besten's (1977,1983) argument in favour of the
idea that the rule "Subject-Clitic V' Inversion"28 moves V' (in den Besten's notation
V' designates the inflected verb accompanied by negative and pronominal clitics) to
Comp (see also Kayne (1984); Rizzi and Roberts (1989)). The data in (28)a-c,
which den Besten borrows from Dubuisson and Goldsmith (1976), shows that
Subject-Clitic V' Inversion correlates with the deletion of the complementizer (this
argument is relevant for those French dialects that allow doubly-filled Comps):
(28)
28
a. Comment dit-il qu'il s'appelle?

b. Comment qu'il dit qu'il s'appelle?
c. *Comment que dit-il qu'il s'appelle?
For Emonds (1976) this rule consists in the rightward movement of the clitic.
97
Given that que is a complementizer, the paradigm in (28)a-c constitutes evidence in

favour of the idea that "Subject clitic inversion" is a rule that moves the verb to
Comp. The argument for Romanian is reversed. Assuming that examples (27) are
produced by the movement of the verb to C, the obligatory absence of s
constitutes evidence in favour of the idea that s is under C: the verb moves to the
Comp position, which is therefore no longer available for sif29
Another argument in favour of this claim is related to the distribution of
complementizers: in French, lexical complementizers are necessarily absent in
indicative root clauses (other than exclamatives) but necessarily present in
subjunctive root clauses:
(29)
a. Que tout le monde soit pret.

that everybody be ready
b. Que les masques tombent.
that the masks fall
If we assume that Romanian subjunctives are like French subjunctives insofar as

they require an overt Comp in subjunctive root clauses, the element s that shows
up in (26) must be assumed to be a Comp element.30
We may note that in French as in Romanian the Comp that heads subjunctive
clauses can be deleted only if verb movement to C applies. It is natural to think that
in (27) s is absent for the same reason that in (30) que is absent, namely the fact
that the Comp position is taken by the moved verb: 31
(30)
a. Vive la France.
live France
b. Ainsi soit-il.
thus be it
The kind of verb movement that we assume for (27) and (30) cannot apply in
embedded clauses because V-headed CP constituents count as V projections, and in
general embedded clauses must count as (nominal) arguments of the main verb;
lexical complementizers would satisfy this requirement (see Kayne (1982)). 32 The
ungrammaticality of (32) as opposed to (31) is directly accounted for under these
hypotheses:
29A
slightly different account of the obligatory deletion of s in (27)c-d can be found in Rivero
(1988a, to appear), who assumes that s occupies an Infi position, in between the C position and
an AGR/Tense position. The absence of s in (27)c-d would be due to V movement (V goes
through Infi on its way to Comp). The difference between Rivero's hypothesis and mine is
partially terminological (I label Comp the position that she labels Infi), and partially substantial:
within her analysis V movement does not end up in Infl/Comp, while within my analysis it does.
3
Note that in root subjunctive clauses ca is ungrammatical.
31
This does not mean that the same type of V movement is assumed for (27) and (30). The
parallelism solely concerns the correlation between V movement and the absence of the (otherwise
obligatory) complementizer in subjunctives. Note also that in French Que vive la France (where
que and subject-verb inversion coexist) is grammatical.
32
I n Chapter 1 it has been proposed that V movement to an embedded C does apply in
Romanian auxiliary constructions. This is so because auxiliaries subcategorize for a V projection.
(31) a. Doresc s triasc Romania.

[I] wish s live Romania
b. Doresc s se intimple ce s-o intimpla.

[I] wish s se happen what may happen
(32) a *doresc triasc Romania

b *doresc intimple-se ce s-o intimpla
3. 2. 2. The structure of subjunctive IP constituents

3. 2. 2. 1. The adjacency between Comp and Infi
At this stage we should try to understand the ambiguous nature of s i by
considering the structures that are generally assumed for clausal constituents:
(33)
CPN
XP
CPN
IP N
NP
I'
I
Infi
VP
'
NP
NP S
V-Infl
ts
V'
NP
tv
It is obvious that the Romanian subjunctive marker s does not fit into this
structure, following either of the two possible hypotheses concerning its categorial
status. Let us assume first that s is generated under Infi; correspondingly ca would
be under C (see example (20)a). According to this hypothesis two important
peculiarities should be noticed, which distinguish Romanian subjunctive clauses
from their Romance counterparts: (a) the (Spec, IP) position is not necessarily
occupied by NP subjects, but by any kind of constituent: verbal complements, PPs,
adverbs, etc. (see examples (21), which were discussed before from another point
of view); in other words the (Spec, IP) position is an A'-position; (b) two distinct
33several dislocated XPs are allowed, which recalls Cinque's (1990) Clitic Left Dislocation
(compare the English-type Left Dislocation, which necessarily involves only one constituent):
(i)
A vrea ca pin miine Ion s termine cartea asta.
[I] would like ca until tomorrow John s finish book this.
Infi positions should be assumed: one for Tense (which also serves as a landing
site for V-to-I movement), and the other one for s. We may alternatively assume
that s is generated under C. This hypothesis also entails some unusual
assumptions: (a) Comp takes an IP complement which does not present a (Spec,
IP) position (this must be assumed, because no XP constituent can intervene
between s and the elements that cluster around V-Infl (the negative adverb nu,
pronominal and adverbial clitics, the auxiliary fi); (b) dislocated constituents,
including the subject, occupy the (Spec.C) position; (c) we need two distinct C
positions, one for s and the other one for ca.
The conclusion we can draw so far is that both hypotheses strongly suggest that
the (Spec,IP) position is not an -position in Romanian subjunctives. 34 This
amounts to saying that the representation of subjunctive IP constituents shown in
(33) is inadequate for Romanian. We may instead adopt (34), which is
independently supported by the characteristics of Romanian auxiliary structures and
by the structure of infinitival clauses (see Chapters 1-2, and Section 3.1):
(34)
IP
[jpV-Infl [ VP NP S [ v t v ]]]
A
The difference between (34) and (33) concerns the -position of the NP subject:
Spec of IP in (33), Spec of VP in (34)). V raising to Infi bypasses the NP subject,
which accounts directly for the postverbal position of the subject in s subjunctives;
the (Spec,IP) position, which would be an A'-position, has been left out in (33).
The distribution of s can be described correctly by assuming that s governs the
IP constituent shown in (35), where (Spec, IP) is necessarily empty. This is a
minimal characterization of s, which is independent of its exact (Comp or Infi)
status; in (35), the label XP is meant to point out the systematic ambiguity of s:
(35) XP
X
IP
V-I
NP
V'
I
NP
I
tv
34()ne might argue that the subject does occupy the (Spec, IP) position; the necessary adjacency
that holds between s and the verb cluster would be obtained by the movement of the verb
(accompanied by the other functional elements) towards a position adjacent to s. This hypothesis
cannot be accepted, because in a structure such as (33) there is no landing position (in between s
and (Spec, IP)) for the verb; see also 3.1.1.2 for a remark concerning a potential analysis in terms
of incorporation.
3. 2. 2. 2. Functional coindexation and restructuring incorporation

We have so far taken for granted that the distinction between Comp and Infi is
theoretically relevant, even if, for justified reasons, it may be empirically irrelevant
in certain cases. Let us now consider recent proposals, according to which Infi is
not an indivisible functional head, but spreads up over several distinct heads: Tense,
AGR, Neg, each of which projects its own maximal category, TenseP, AGRP 35
and NegP respectively (cf Pollock (1989)). The question is then raised whether the
notions of Infi and IP are still relevant within this framework; this raises the further
question of the status of CP and its difference from IP.
The proliferation of functional projections such as TenseP, AGRP, NegP, etc.,
while probably justified, must be reconciled with the fact that at S-structure
elements such as AGR, Tense, etc. do not function as independent constituents, but
attach to the verb, 36 thus giving rise to hybrid elements (inflected verbs) which
have the status of (post)syntactic words. 37 Correspondingly, the S-structure
maximal projections are not TenseP, AGRP, etc., but hybrid categories that we
could label Tense/AGR/VP, corresponding to the hybrid V-Tense-AGR element
that heads them:38
(36)
IP (T/AGR/VP)
NP
VP
V-T-AGR t v ...
The configuration given in (36) underlies the French-type of clause structure; the
complex X category V-T(ense)-AGR is the result of successive movement of V
towards Tense and AGR; the verb has raised to a position which is
morphologically subcategorized by Tense. At S-structure the distinction between
V, Tense and AGR is no longer relevant, and the whole sequence of elements bears
the categorial label Tense; the resulting sequence does not bear the label AGR,
35
A S already noted in Chapter 1, we take AGR to be a nominal element (comparable to
pronominal clitics) which does not project a maximal category, as opposed to Tense and Neg, but
for the sake of discussion this hypothesis (proposed by Pollock (1989)) is provisionally accepted.
36
W e shall leave aside a possible alternative, according to which the verb and the verbal
inflections are separate constituents at S-structure; they would only merge at some Morphological
Level.
37
These constituents are syntactic words insofar as they may feed certain syntactic rules such as
V-second (compare with words resulting from phonological cliticization (I'll leave, le livre du
gargon, which do not feed any syntactic rule), but they are postsyntactic
because they are
themselves the result of certain syntactic rules, such as V raising to Infi. Note however that V to
Infi is triggered by morphological subcategorization (see Lieber (1980)), and therefore this rule
probably applies before purely syntactic rules.
38
T h e notions of "merged", "matching" or "extended" projections are not central to our theoretical
framework, but they have been recently proposed in a number of studies (see Platzack (1983);
Vergnaud (1987); Haider (1988) and Grimshaw (1991)).
101
because I assume that AGR does not govern TenseP, but rather adjoins to Tense
(see Chapter 1). We might then preserve the label Tense in order to refer to all the
elements which at S-structure end up dominated by Tense.
The incorporation process just described characterizes affixes, which are
morphologically subcategorized for a V slot to which the verb raises. In Chapters 1
and 2 evidence has been provided in favour of another type of incorporation,
Restructuring Incorporation. As with affix incorporation, distinct X categories are
generated in distinct syntactic positions, but they end up incorporated to each other,
by virtue of the following mechanisms ((37)a corresponds to (38) of chapter 1, and
(37)b to (12) of Chapter 2):
(37) a. Functional Coindexation: Coindex adjacent functional X categories.
b. Restructuring Incorporation: Coindexed adjacent (functional) X
categories merge into one X category.
The main motivation of Restructuring Incorporation has been dealt with in Section
2. 1. 3.1 sketch here the basic idea. In examples such as (38)b the string Neg-clV+9 has been moved by Move I:
(38) a. tu {ne le vois} pas
b. (nelevois)-tutnele vois pas?
The fact that the bracketed sequence in (38) can be moved indicates that it forms a
constituent, and I assume Restructuring Incorporation to be the relevant mechanism
behind this process: by Restructuring Incorporation several distinct heads end up
forming one X constituent, which can then be moved as a whole.
Note that Restructuring Incorporation is not an obligatory rule. The well-known
type of examples in (39) show : (a) that clitics can be left behind by Move I-to-C
(see (39)a); this means that Restructuring Incorporation has not applied prior to
Move I; (b) that Neg blocks this kind of movement (see (39)b-d):
(39)
a.
Ecris-le.
b.
Nel'ecnspas.
c.
*n'ecrisj-leejpas
d . *6cnsj ne le ej pas
39xhe sign "-" indicates a relation between bound morphemes; "+" indicates Restructuring
Incorporation.
(39')
CP
C
NegP
Neg
IP
CI
IP
V-I
The structure in (391) is quite general across languages (subject positions are left
out, because they are not relevant here). The relative position of Neg, Comp and
pronominal clitics is probably motivated by the relation between Neg and Tense
(see Zanuttini (1989) and Laka (1989)). This structure corresponds to (39)b in a
straightforward manner (C stays empty).
TTie example in (39)a can be analyzed as being produced by the movement of the
inflected verb to Comp (see den Besten (1983) and Chapter 2 above), past the
pronominal clitic. The example in (39)c is ruled out because the verb has moved to
a nonexistent position. By the structure preservation constraint, syntactic positions
cannot be created in the course of the derivation; a head element such as the verb
can only be moved to a head position provided by the base rules, and there is no
such position between the negative head ne and the clitic-verb sequence. (39)d is
especially interesting: it can be ruled out by the Head movement constraint if we
make the crucial assumption that ne is a head which blocks the movement of the
verb to the higher Comp position. We thus arrive at the conclusion that ne functions
as a head element distinct from (V-)Infl.
Summing up, examples (39) show that Restructuring Incorporation does not
necessarily apply. Examples like (38)a would then be structurally ambiguous,
allowing for two distinct representations, with and without Restructuring
Incorporation. What is then the categorial label of the highest projection, i.e. which
element counts as its head, for the representation without Restructuring
Incorporation? It is natural to assume that even in the absence of Restructuring
Incorporation a strong coherence exists between the various functional categories
clustering around the verb. One may invoke a general requirement on functional
categories: they must necessarily "connect" with lexical categories. The procedure
of Functional Coindexation stated in (37)a is one possible type of connection.
Note that Functional Coindexation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for
Restructuring Incorporation. It can then be assumed that Functional Coindexation
applies before the Move I-to-C rule that underlies examples (39)a. The contrast
between (39)a and (39)d indicates that functionally coindexed elements, e.g., ne,
the clitic le and the inflected verb, do not become non-distinct from each other. In
particular, ne is a potential antecedent governor of the trace of a raised V+I. This
explains the ungrammaticality of (39)d, where ne blocks the movement of the verb
to Comp, by the Head to Head movement constraint. The blocking effect of the
intervening clitic in (39)a is circumvented via Merging (see Chapter 2).
It is thus clear that the elements, or the sub-strings, composing a functionally
coindexed sequence (or an "extended projection") are not necessarily subject to
restructuring incorporation, but may remain distinct from each other. Note that the
adjacency condition that governs both Functional Coindexation and Restructuring
Incorporation forces the assumption that there are not several distinct positions such
as (Spec, AGR), (Spec, Tense) or (Spec, Neg) available for the external argument
(compare Pollock (1989), for whom such positions are crucial). It is assumed that
only the highest functional projection has a Spec position.
Let us now come back to s subjunctives. The crucial empirical generalization
outlined previously was that s is adjacent to the sequence of elements clustering
around the inflected verb. The representation in (35), repeated here, is neutral with
respect to the exact status one may want to assign to s and its projection:
(35) XP
X
IP
I
V-I
VP
NP
V'
NP
tv
Given Functional Coindexation on the one hand and Restructuring Incorporation on

the other hand, there are two possible realizations of (35): (a) s may restructure
with (Neg-cl-)V+I, giving rise to a complex X category labelled Infi, the
projection of which would be labelled IP (see (40)a); (b) alternatively, one may
assume that s is only functionally coindexed (but not incorporated to) with (Neg
cl) V+I(see (40)b):
(40) a. [IP [is* V-Inflj] [ V P N P [ V ' t y ...]]]
b. [XP [xsiij] [IP [iV-Infli] [ V PNP [ V ' t y ...]]]
Under both alternatives, the projection of s counts as a merged/matching projection
of Infi. I think this is what explains the status of "Infi particle" which is frequently
attributed to s (see Farkas (1981, 1984) and Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)). 40 Note that
according to Grimshaw (1991) CP is always an extended projection of Infi (and by
way of consequence of V). Under the present proposal only certain CPs behave as
merged projections of Infi; further discussion can be found in the sections that
follow.
Whether s is under Comp or under some Infi node is irrelevant to both (40)a
and (40)b. This issue has consequences for the status of ca: if s is under Comp,
we must assume CP recursion (because we need a Comp position for ca ); if
alternatively s is under Infi, then ca may be under Comp (see examples such as
(20) and (21)). When ca is absent (see (24)a and (26)a-b) a null element might be
assumed to stand under Comp. If we analyze the latter case in terms of Haider's
(1988) proposal, we end up with a "matching" projection labelled CP/IP. Thus,
40
Farkas (1988) proposes a different analysis, which is close to the one adopted here: s would
lead a "double life", both as a Comp (in the syntax) and as Infi (in the morphology). This double
analysis is stipulated by two distinct subcategorization rules, within Sadock's (1985, 1991)
autolexical framework. In what follows we show that the double status of sneed not be
stipulated, but is the result of functional incorporation.
independently of the exact status that we may assume for s, its projection has
either the status of a matching CP/IP constituent, or that of an extended projection
of Infi, or that of IP.
Why then does (Spec,IP) not block Functional coindexation/ Restructuring
incorporation? (This question arises only on the hypothesis that s is under Comp.)
More precisely, what prevents the (Spec,IP) position from dominating lexical
material, in which case the adjacency condition would not obtain, and Functional
coindexation/incorporation would not apply. To answer these questions we shall
assume that A'-positions do not count for our adjacency condition: thus, by the base
rules s takes an IP complement which may present a (Spec,IP) position; but since
in Romanian (Spec,IP) is an A'-position, it does not prevent s from incorporating
onto (Neg-Cl-)V-Infl. 41 As a result of incorporation intervening A'-positions
delete, and therefore no lexical insertion can apply to them.42
3. 2. 3. On certain differences between subjunctives and indicatives
We will now turn to the reason why Romanian does not present an element
comparable to s in indicative clauses. If we assume s to be under Infi, no answer
is found to the question: why do subjunctive clauses present two Infi nodes,
whereas indicatives present only one? Alternatively, if we assume s to stand under
Comp, we may compare it to the complementizer characteristic of indicatives:
(41)
a. Stiu c a plecat mama.

[I] know that has left mother
b. Stiu c ar veni $i mama.
[I] know that would come also mother
c. Stiu c mama ar veni i ea.
[I] know that mother would come also her
d. Stiu c ieri a plecat mama.
[I] know that yesterday has left mother
e. Sint sigur cpe Ion nu 1-ai vzut de anul trecut.
[I] am sure that pe John [you] not him-have seen since last year
These examples show that c may appear either in front of the verb cluster (see
(41)a,b) or in front of a left dislocated constituent, which may be the subject or
some other constituent. Given our hypothesis concerning the clause structure of
Romanian, an example such as (41)c must be analyzed as involving the left
dislocation of the subject, on a par with the other dislocated constituents in (41)d-e.
This distribution indicates that unlike s, which is ambiguous between Comp
and Infi, c is distinct from Infi: a (Spec, IP) position may intervene between c and
the verb cluster. This difference between subjunctives and indicatives is not
4
' T h e technical details of this process are not relevant for our present purpose; one may assume a
successive application of Restructuring incorporation: pronominal clitics merge with V-Infl, then
Neg merges with Cl-V-Infl; finally, s i merges with Neg-Cl-V-Infl.
4 2 A n alternative technical implementation would be to assume that A'-positions are generated late
in the derivation, after the incorporation has applied; no A'-position can be inserted inside an
incorporated string.
accidental; under a slightly different form, we find it in classic Arabic, for instance:
the subjunctive Comp element necessarily precedes the verb, whereas the indicative
Comp element necessarily precedes an NP (see Ayoub (1982)).
This difference between subjunctives and indicatives may be understood by
taking into account other well-known differences, which concern the Tense features
characteristic of each of these two moods. It is currently assumed that Comp hosts
abstract Tense features (see den Besten (1983); Stowell (1981)). The question is
then, what is the difference, if any, between the Tense features under Comp and
those under Infi? It is reasonable to assume that the Tense features in Comp
represent the speech moment, while the Tense features that appear under Infi
specify the temporal coordinates of the event that is referred to in EP ( (1987)).
Let us notate these elements by T and Tense respectively, and examine the relation
between them. The subjunctive mood expresses an event which is dependent on the
main clause. Correlatively, the temporal reference of subjunctive clauses is
dependent on the Tense of the main clause: in order to assign temporal reference to
Romanian subjunctives one must take into account the Tense in the main clause.
Indicatives on the other hand may be assigned temporal reference without any
recourse to the main clause. 43 These two types of Tenses are currently referred to
as "anaphoric" and "deictic" (see Partee (1984)), and certain authors have tried to
treat them in terms of the [+anaphoric] and [-anaphoric] distinction (see Bennis and
Hoekstra (1988) and Fassi-Fehri (forthcoming), who use this distinction in quite
different ways). The present discussion is descriptive, and does not presuppose any
complete theory, [-an] Tenses are interpreted by reference to the speech moment,
which amounts to saying that [-an] Tenses are necessarily distinct from the T
features in Comp. This necessary distinction between [-an] Tenses and T can be
captured by assigning distinct Tense indices to Comp and Infi. It is natural to
assume that the existence of two distinct Tense indices blocks Functional
Coindexation, and this in turn blocks Restructuring Incorporation; hence the clear
Comp status of c in Romanian indicatives.
Consider now the referential properties of subjunctive Tenses: given our
distinction between Tense and T, the label [+an] is unsuitable, since it suggests
that in subjunctive clauses the Tense features generated under Infi bear the same
index as the T features under Comp. But this is not what we want to capture: the
peculiar property of subjunctive Tense is that its reference is not constructed with
reference to the speech moment, but rather with reference to the Tense features of
the Infi element of the main clause. This means that the Comp of subjunctive
clauses does not host T features: T would break the relation required by the
subjunctive, between the embedded and the main Tense features. We may then
assume that at LF subjunctive Tense raises from Infi to Comp (since Comp does
not dominate T features, it is an accessible landing site for the Tense features
generated under Infi), from where it can enter the required relation with the Tense
3This difference between subjunctives and indicatives is quite general across languages. Note
however that the contrast may be more or less marked: French and English for instance present the
phenomenon called "sequence of tenses", by which the tense of an embedded indicative clause is
dependent on the Tense of the main clause (note however that this dependence is formal, rather
than referential: a certain Tense in the main clause requires a certain Tense in the embedded
clause). In Romanian the sequence of Tenses is much less constrained. French subjunctives on the
other hand do present a degree of independence with respect to the Tense of the main clause.
of the main clause. 4 4 Beyond particular technical proposals, the common

assumption concerning subjunctives is that a peculiar relation holds between Comp
and Infi (see in particular Safir (1981, 1985)) in a wide variety of languages; in
terms of indexing, we may say that Comp and Infi bear the same Tense index (or
compatible Tense indices) in subjunctives (and infinitives), which allows for
Functional Coindexation and Restructuring Incorporation.
It thus appears that the non-distinctness between Comp and Infi is not
haphazard: it depends on a particular type of IP structure (and thus can be found in
certain languages, and not in others); it also depends on Comp and Infi being
assigned identical (or compatible) Tense indices (this condition is satisfied in
subjunctives and infinitives, as opposed to indicatives). Note that, as in the case of
subjunctives, the (Spec,IP) position is unable to block the Functional
Coindexation/Restructuring Incorporation of c (the Comp element characteristic of
indicatives) and (Neg-Cl-)-V-Infl; the blocking factor in this case is the fact that
Comp and Infi bear distinct/incompatible Tense indices. Since Functional
Coindexation/ Restructuring incorporation is blocked, (Spec,IP) may be generated,
hence examples such as (41)c-e. Compare also French (and more generally
Romance) subjunctives: the incorporation of Comp into Infi is blocked by
(Spec,IP), which in French is an A-position.
3. 2. 4. On the difference between CP and IP
We have so far arrived at the conclusion that, given the distributional characteristics
of s, and independently of its Comp or Infi status, the structure of Romanian
subjunctive IP constituents must be of the type in (34). Under the assumption that
s is a Comp element, it is possible to explain the fact that no counterpart of s
exists for indicatives. A further argument in favour of the same hypothesis can be
constructed in trying to answer the following question: is there any relation between
the existence of an element such as s and IP constituents of the type in (34)?
First, let us assume that in (35) s is under an Infi node; correlatively, the Comp
node would be empty (since Bresnan (1970, 1972) it has been currently assumed
that IP constituents are necessarily introduced by Comp). We would thus have an
empty category under Comp, but two Infi elements: s on the one hand, and the Infi
node to which the verb raises on the other. The most difficult problem to solve here
is the status of the two distinct Infi nodes. We would have to assume that languages
drastically differ from one another in their base rules: certain languages would
present more Infi heads than others. This type of hypothesis leads to a less
constrained theory of syntax, which may make it more difficult for us really to
understand linguistic variation. In particular we cannot establish any relation
between the existence of two Infi nodes and the VSO type of structure in (34);
thus, if we assume two Infi nodes in (35), there is nothing to prevent the existence
of two Infi nodes in SVO languages such as English or French: nothing stops us
from inserting an Infi node between (Spec,IP) and I' in (33), but this situation does
not seem to be actualized. The hypothesis that s is under Infi thus appears to be
nonexplanatory.
44
Note that this relation itself is not strictly speaking "anaphoric", because the subjunctive Tense
features do not bear the same index as the Tense of the main clause, but only depend on them.
If on the contrary we assume that s is under Comp we expect this type of

element to be possible only in the languages characterized by the VSO type of IP
structure shown in (34), where Comp and Infi are adjacent to each other, in (33) the
subject position intervenes between Comp and V-Infl, and thus renders impossible
the existence of elements like s, which are necessarily adjacent to the verb cluster.
This correlation between a particular type of IP and the existence of an element
which is ambiguous between Comp and Infi seems to hold. In certain VSO
languages, among them Welsh, any kind of Comp element necessarily incorporates
onto V/IP (cf. Rouveret (1987); the reformulation in terms of incorporation is
mine), independently of the type of Tense features. The difference between
Romanian and these languages may lie in the fact that Romanian is a VSO language
which is also Topic-oriented, i.e., it takes a Top position internal to IP. Other VSO
languages, such as classic Arabic, look more like Romanian, insofar as distinct
Comp elements precede verbs and nominal maximal projections respectively. This
generalization seems to cover sifvs c, but this is only partially true: cif is legitimate
not only in front of XPs, but also in front of verbs, unlike hanna in Arabic, which
can only precede XPs.
Coming back to s, according to the hypothesis that it occupies the Comp
position, the properties in favour of its Infi status can all be derived from the fact
that s is subject to Functional Coindexation/ Restructuring incorporation with Infi.
Conversely, it seems more difficult to understand the Comp-like characteristics of
s, if we assume that s is under Infi; besides the question of comparative syntax
presented above, the following problems would call for certain stipulations: a) why
must the Comp node stay empty; b) why must Neg be lower than s, while Neg is
higher than all the other Infi elements; c) why is the position of s a target for V
movement?
Finally we should stress that independently of the exact status assumed for s,
the projection that dominates it is either IP or a CP/IP merging/matching projection.
3. 2. 5. The cjoubly lled Comp lterand predication

Consider the examples in (23) ((23)a is repeated in (42)), which may be taken to
constitute an argument against the Comp status of s:
(42) Am cu cine s plec.
[I] have with whom s [I] leave
The contrast between subjunctives and a infinitives is particularly significant;
compare (42) and (43), which shows that wh-elements are allowed to coexist with
bare infinitives, but not with a infinitives:
(43) a. *am cu cine a pleca
[] have with whom to leave
b. am cu cine pleca
In section 3.1. we have analyzed the ungrammaticality of (43) as being due to the
doubly filled Comp filter. Note however that by the same reasoning we are led to
the conclusion that s is not a Comp element, because (42) shows no violation of
the doubly filled Comp filter. But this conclusion cannot be reconciled with the
evidence provided above in favour of the Comp status of s. This problem can be
solved by providing an account for the ungrammaticality of (43) which does not
rely on the doubly filled Comp.45
The basis of the analysis that follows is that a infinitives occur in typical NP
positions, to the exclusion of VP positions; in other words, a infinitives can only
function as arguments, but not as predicates. The ungrammaticality of (43) would
be due to the fact that wh-elements necessarily enter predicative constructions, but a
infinitives cannot function as predicates. S subjunctives on the other hand are
allowed to function as predicates,46 hence the possibility of their co-occurring with
wh-elements in Comp.
This hypothesis captures other contrasts between a infinitives and s
subjunctives (note however that (44)b used to be grammatical in older stages of
Romanian):
(44)
a. Pot cinta.
[I] can sing
b. *Pot a cinta
(45)
Pot s eint.
The asymmetry in (44)a-b can be captured by assuming that a putea 'can'

necessarily takes a verbal projection as a complement: in (44)a the bare infinitive is
a VP constituent, which satisfies the subcategorization features of a putea; (44)b is
ungrammatical, because a infinitives cannot count as verbal projections. Example
(45) is grammatical, which indicates that s subjunctives, unlike a infinitives, may
count as verbal projections.
The NP-like distribution of a infinitives, which contrasts with the predicate
status of s subjunctives also accounts for the following observation: Romanian
auxiliary structures (see Chapter 1) are constructed with auxiliaries followed either
by a bare infinitive (see future and conditional paradigms) or by a s subjunctive
(see the colloquial future of the form am s-fi scriu '[] have s [I]-youDat writesubjunctive' ( am going to write to you'), to the exclusion of a infinitives. This
distribution is to be expected if we assume that: (a) auxiliaries necessarily take
verbal projections as complements; (b) a infinitives cannot count as verbal
projections.
To sum up, a infinitives differ from s subjunctives by their exclusively NPdistribution. This is an empirical generalization, which accounts for a number of
phenomena central to Romanian syntax. But this difference is not due to a
difference in categorial status: a infinitives and s subjunctives must be assigned the
same categorial status, they count as "merging" or "matching" projections that we
45
This is needed independently, given the possibility of "long" wh-movement with a infinitives.
In (i) we must assume that the intermediate wh-trace coexists with a:
(i)
Ce nu gtii dae te-au rugat a scrie?
what don't [you] know whether [they] asked you a write?
S subjunctives also function as nominal projections, as indicated by the fact that they can be
freely used instead of a infinitives, see in particular all the examples in 3.1., which stay
grammatical if we substitute the subjunctive for an a infinitive.
have labelled CP/IP/VP, headed by a complex head, Comp-V-Infl. We must then

stipulate that the difference between a infinitives and s subjunctives is due to the
intrinsic features of a and s: the doubly filled Comp effects characteristic of
Romanian a infinitives are due to the nominal status of a, and not to the Comp
position that it occupies; s subjunctives on the other hand are merged CP/IP/VPs
that may count either as I/VPs, that is as predicates, or as CPs, that is as arguments.
Note that CP complements which are not "merged" CP/IP/VPs necessarily function
as arguments, and not as predicates (see example (23)b, which shows that
indicative CPs give rise to "doubly filled Comp" violations). This indicates that the
fact that CP/IP/VP projections may count as VP projections is due to the fact that
the inflected verb is a segment of their complex head.
3. 2. 6. Comp and left dislocated elements
Consider the following examples:
(46) a. Vreau ca miine s vin Ion.
[I] want that tomorrow s come John
b. Doresc ca pe Ion s-1 examineze Popescu.
[I] wish that pe John si-him examine Popescu
wish that John be examined by Popescu.'
Ca is obligatory in these examples:
(47)
a. * vreau miine s vin Ion

[I] want tomorrow s come John
b. * doresc pe Ion s- examineze Popescu
[I] wish pe John s-him examine Popescu
(47)a-b become correct if miine and pe Ion occupy a postverbal position :

(48) a. Vreau s vin Ion miine.
b. Vreau s- examineze Popescu pe Ion.
These examples raise an obvious problem for an analysis in which s is a Comp
element: in these examples the clause-initial position is not occupied by s, but by
another element, ca.
The examples in (46)-(47) indicate that ca is required by the presence of a
lexical element that precedes s V. Obviously, this is an A'-position which hosts
dislocated constituents (an adverb in (46)a, a direct object in (46)b). It is also clear
that ca is not required by the Case filter: miine is an adverb, and as such it does not
need Case; the preposition pe assigns Accusative Case to Ion (see Chapter 6).
What then is the status of ca ? Is there any general principle that might be
responsible for the distribution of ca?
It is important to note that the ungrammaticality in (47) is not general across
languages: Greek is like Romanian insofar as it presents a subjunctive particle na
comparable to s, which necessarily precedes the verb cluster; dislocated
constituents precede na itself (they cannot appear between na and the verb), but in
this case no other element is needed (in other words the Greek counterparts of (47)
are grammatical). (49) should then be viewed as a language-particular requirement:
(49) Lexical elements must be governed.
The principle in (49) is natural: it requires that any linguistic element should be
determined with respect to the other elements of a given structure; an ungoverned
lexical element is hors structure, and as such illicit. The condition in (49) may be
understood as a visibility condition comparable to the Case filter, we shall call it the
government filter. These two filters are independent of each other. There are indeed
contexts which pass the government filter, but not the Case-filter. In languages such
as French, clitic doubling is excluded by virtue of the Case filter (the clitic absorbs
Objective Case, which is no longer available for the lexical NP in the direct object
position); no violation of the government filter can be invoked, if we assume with
Borer (1981, 1984) that clitic doubled NPs occupy their canonic A-position.
The government filter is relevant for the converse situation, illustrated in (47)a-b,
examples which do not show any violation of the Case filter, their ungrammaticality
may be due to the fact that when they occupy the preverbal position miine and pe
Ion are not governed (the definition of government needed here is that based on the
strict definition of c-command, stated in terms of branching nodes, see Reinhart
(1976)).
Here are (47)a-b again with a rough indication of their underlying structure:
(47) a. * vreau [ e [ miinej [xps# vin Ion tj]]]
[I] want
tomorrow
s i come John
b. *doresc [ e [pe Ionj [^ps-lj examineze tj Popescu]]]
[I] wish
pe John s-him examine Popescu
According to the strict definition of C-command, miine and pe Ion C-command all
the constituents of IP, but are not themselves C-commanded by any of them, thus
violating the filter given in (49).47
Consider now the examples in (48). They are correct, because the constituents
miine and pe Ion are governed inside the subjunctive clause, by Infi and V,
respectively.
The definition of government adopted here leads to the following generalization:
the elements that occupy left dislocated A'-positions adjoined to a given XP
projection cannot be governed by elements belonging to XP. They may instead be
governed by elements outside XP. This is currently assumed for certain elements
such as heads and Specifiers; we simply extend this assumption to dislocated
^^Note however that the following examples are well-formed, despite the fact that miine and pe
Ion are not governed:
(i)
[jpMtine [j.va veni Ion]]
tomorrow will come John
(ii)
[jp pe Ion [j.il va examina Popescu]]
pe John him will examine Popescu
Our government filter does not apply in main clauses, but this is not really a problem, given
well-known independent differences between embedded and main clauses.
elements (which may as a matter of fact be taken to be dominated by (Spec,CP)).

The examples in (46) are correct, because miine and pe Ion are governed by ca.
Given the possibility of government by an element external to XP, the
ungrammaticality of (47) needs further qualification: the main verb should not be
allowed to govern elements adjoined to s subjunctives.48
Furthermore it should be noted that this analysis does not directly account for
(50):
(50) N-am gsit inc fat cu care Ion s se infeleag.
[I] have not yet found a girl with whom John s get along well
According to the X'-theory proposed in Chomsky (1986b), wh-elements occupy
the (Spec,C') position, the head Comp position being necessarily empty (due to
some filter comparable to the doubly tilled Comp filter). Hence (50) would contain
no element that could govern Ion, and would be expected to be ungrammatical,
contrary to fact. A possible solution would be to say that Comp, even if empty, is
able to license a dislocated element. This necessitates a slight reformulation of our
account of (47): the fact that the dislocated elements cannot be governed inside the
embedded clause is due to the fact that Comp is not actualised, not to the fact that it
is empty.
Finally let us consider (51)-(52):
(51) a. A$ vrea s-1 examineze mama pe Ion.
[I] would like sif-him examine mother pe John
would like that mother examine John'
b. A vrea s piece i Ion.
[I] would like s leave also John
(52)
a. V.a vrea ca s- examineze mama pe Ion

b. ??af vrea ca s piece i Ion
Examples (52), which differ minimally from (51) in the presence of ca, are
incorrect. 49 This ungrammaticality may be taken to indicate that ca necessarily
subcategorizes for a CP that presents a (Spec,CP).50
48
This possibility depends on lexical specifications : certain main verbs are able to govern the
subject of a subjunctive clause, in a way similar to English cases of Exceptional Case Marking,
cf. I made John cry (on this see Rivero (1988b)).
49
In colloquial Romanian, examples (52) are acceptable (which is why two question marks have
been used instead of *; but since we are speaking of two distinct socio-dialects, we could
maintain * in (52)), which indicates that in this dialect ca s functions as a variant of s.
Âccording to the hypothesis that s subjunctives are IP projections, the ungrammaticality of
(52) could be captured by an obligatory string-vacuous rule that would move s to Comp (cf.
Farkas 1982; Dobrovie-Sorin 1987), but such a rule has no clear status.
4. Subject anaphors in subjunctive clauses
In Chapter 3 it was demonstrated that the constituent structure of Romanian clauses

in general, and of subjunctive clauses in particular, is crucially different from that of
the other Romance languages. In this section it will be shown that this analysis is
relevant in explaining a well-known historical evolution, common to Balkan
languages: infinitival clauses came to be supplanted (completely or partially,
depending on the language) by subjunctive clauses. Our aim is to understand this
evolution, by posing the following question: what are the properties of the
Romanian subjunctive that allowed it to replace the infinitive?1 An answer to this
question does not necessarily require a diachronic study. We shall instead adopt a
comparative point of view, and try to understand the properties that infinitival
constructions (in Romance languages in general, including Romanian) have in
common with Romanian subjunctive constructions (as opposed to subjunctives in
the other Romance languages).
4. 1. The data: control, subject raising and obviation

Consider the following examples, in which a Romanian subjunctive can only be
translated by an infinitive in the other Romance languages and in English:
(1)
(2)
(3)
a. Am inceput s citesc "Cei trei mufchetari ".

[I] started that [I] read su bj "The Three Musketeers"
b. Ion a incercat s-1 pedepseasc pe Mihai.
John tried that (he) punishSubj Mihai
c. /-am cerut s recite poezie.
[I] him-have asked s recitesubj a poem
asked him to recite a poem.'
Ion vrea s piece devreme miine.
John wants that [he] leavesubj early tomorrow
a. Top' biepi s-au nimerit s He bolnavi.
all the boys happened that (they) besubj ill
b. Copiii ti par s e foarte obosip.
your children seem that (they) beSubj very tired
These examples illustrate three distinct semantic relations between the embedded
and main clauses, which depend on the semantic properties of the main verb, i.e.
pertaining to argument structure. The data in (l)a-b are instances of "obligatory
control": the subject of the embedded clause is necessarily coreferential with an
element (either the subject or an object) in the main clause. Following Williams
(1980); Mohanan (1985); and Kster (1984,1987), I believe that obligatory control
should be kept distinct from "optional" and "arbitrary" control (see (l)c and (i)-(iv)
1
Another fundamental question will be left open: what led the infinitive to disappear gradually?
Subject anaphors in subjunctive clauses 113
in footnote 2). As opposed to optional control, obligatory control necessarily

requires an antecedent (in other words no case of arbitrary control arises) and
allows neither split antecedents, nor non-c-commanding antecedents or nonlocal
antecedents.2
The example in (2) should be compared to (2'):
(2')
Jeani veut qu'ilj/*i parte tot demain matin
(2') illustrates the "obviation" effect: certain verbs (in particular volition verbs)
govern a subjunctive clause if the embedded subject is disjoint in reference from the
main subject; but when the embedded subject is coreferent with the main subject,
the infinitive rather than the subjunctive is obligatory. Example (2) shows that
Romanian subjunctives are not subject to the obviation effect.
The examples in (3) are subject raising constructions, which differ from (1) by
the fact that the main verb cannot be said to select a lexical subject, but only a
dummy subject, as it does in (4):
(4)
S-a nimerit s fie bolnavi top' bie.

[it] happened s beSubj ill all die children
The examples in (3) are derived from (4), via the raising of the embedded subject
towards the subject position of the main clause. The examples in (1) and (3) are
currently assumed to be characterized by distinct syntactic configurations: in
particular the embedded subjects are assigned distinct syntactic types (in technical
terms, PRO and NP-trace for (1) and (3) respectively).3 Different as they may be,
however, these two types of empty subjects have in common the fact that they can
show up only if the verb is either in the infinitive (in Romance languages including
Romanian) 4 or in the subjunctive (in Romanian). These facts raise a double
question: what is the common property of control and raising configurations and
why is this property compatible with the subjunctive in Romanian, but not in the
other Romance languages? Note that the examples in (l)-(3) involve s
subjunctives. Our analysis will have to explain why ca subjunctives (see 3.2.6 in
Chapter 3) are illicit in the constructions illustrated in (1) and (3); as to the
examples in (2), they allow ca infinitives, but in this case the interpretation is quite
different.
We shall answer the above questions by examining in turn the three supposedly
distinct constructions illustrated in (l)-(3). For each of them, our starting point will
be the standard analysis that is assumed for the infinitival constructions that
illustrate them, for instance in French and English. We shall then try to see in what
2
Compare the opposite properties of optional control illustrated in examples (i)-(iv), borrowed
from Kster (1987: 111):
(i)
It is impossible [e to help Bill]
(ii)
John proposed to Mary [e to go to the movies]
(iii)
It is difficult for Mary [e to help Bill]
(iv) John thinks [jpif is impossible [jpc to shave himself]]
3As to (2), several analyses have been proposed (cf. Section 4.5. below).
4
In Romanian the infinitive may show up instead of the subjunctive very marginally in (1) and
somewhat more easily in (3); in (2) the subjunctive alone is possible in modern Romanian.
way we must modify this analysis in order to extend it to Romanian, where the
subjunctive can be used (instead of the infinitive or in free variation with it).
Our main conclusions support the view that obligatory control is governed by
principles belonging to binding theory (see Koster (1978a, 1984, 1987); Bouchard
(1984); Manzini (1983); Borer (1987)). We shall also provide evidence in favour
of the idea that obligatory control and subject raising rely on the same
configurational relation (see Kster (1978a, 1984, 1987)).
4. 2. PRO and control structures

The Romanian examples in (1) share "control effects" with the corresponding
English glosses: the embedded subject is necessarily coreferential with an element
of the main clause. In both languages these constructions are syntactically
constrained: in English (and also in all Romance languages other than Romanian)
the control relation requires an infinitival embedded clause, while Romanian allows
the subjunctive, besides the infinitive, to the exclusion of the indicative. In the
analysis that follows we will show that despite prima facie evidence, Romanian
control configurations obey the same syntactic constraints as their Romance and
English counterparts.
Control effects are currently analyzed (cf. Chomsky (1981)) as being triggered
by a particular type of empty category, the "pronominal anaphor", notated PRO.
Because of its intrinsic features, this element (instantiated by infinitival subjects)
must necessarily enter into a control relation:5 it needs a close antecedent, which
fixes its reference; the antecedent is an element of the main clause, either the subject
or the object, depending on the main verb. 6 The relationship that an infinitival
subject is bound to entertain with an element in the main clause is called "control",
hence the term "controlled element" for PRO itself.
Obviously, this analysis does not easily extend to Romanian. Two possible
lines of inquiry may be undertaken. A first possibility, immediately dismissable, is
that the null subjects of Romanian subjunctives are of the same abstract type as the
null subjects of English and Romance infinitives, namely PRO. This analysis,
proposed in Dobrovie-Sorin (1987), requires a number of non-trivial stipulations,
which lead to a weakened, unconstrained and unfalsifiable theory of PRO (see
3.1.3. above). It is quite clear that by virtue of its being "identified" by the AGR
features on the verb, the null subject of Romanian subjunctives is rather of type
pro, i.e., comparable to the subjects of tensed clauses. The relation between AGR
and pro being comparable to the one between object clitics and their traces (see
Rizzi (1982); Chomsky (1982)) we shall notate pro by (AGR,e), on a par with the
current (cl, e) notation used for clitics.
Another argument against the idea that subjunctive subjects would be PRO
relates to the fact that Romanian subjunctive clauses are compatible with both null
and lexical subjects. This is to be expected if the null subject is pro, but not if it is
PRO: by the "PRO theorem", PRO can only occupy a position which is not
5This is an oversimplified presentation of the theory of PRO, but it is sufficient for our present
purposes.
6
I f no antecedent is available the only possible reference that can be assigned to infinitival
subjects is "arbitrary" (to speak is easy), but this particular case does not interest us here.
accessible to lexical subjects. This problem also concerns Romanian infinitival null
subjects, which alternate with lexical subjects. Thus, given the possibility illustrated
in (5)a-b, it is difficult to assume that the null subject in (6)a-b is PRO:
(5)
a. Ion a mincatinainte de a pleca mama.

John ate before to leave mother
'John ate before mother left.'
b. Ion a mincat inainte s piece mama.
John ate before s leave mother
(same meaning as (5)a)
(6)
a. Ionj a mincat inainte de a pleca ei.

Johni ate before to leave ei
b. Ionj a mincat inainte s piece ei.
Johni ate before s leave ei
We must then give up the idea that in Romanian, control effects are triggered by
PRO.
4. 3. On the contextual identification of anaphors
A different theory of control has been proposed by Koster (1978a, 1984, 1987);
Bouchard (1984); Manzini (1983); Borer (1987). Despite a number of diverging
ideas, these proposals have in common the attempt to reduce control theory to
binding theory, by assuming that PRO has the status of an anaphor.
Manzini is however apart in as far as she assumes that PRO is not a standard
anaphor, but an "anaphor without a governing category" which is subject to a
revised principle A: an anaphor without a governing category must be bound in the
governing category of its domain. Manzini's theory may well tum out to be correct
for optional control. As to obligatory control, I will assume that the other authors
above mentioned are correct in trying to reduce it to standard binding; in other
words PRO is a standard anaphor, and as such is subject to principle A of binding
theory:
(7)
a. An anaphor is bound in its governing category.

(principle A)
b. is bound by iff is coindexed with and C-commands
c. The governing category of is the minimal category which contains , the
governor of and a subject.7
According to Borer (1987) the status of anaphor is not assigned to an empty

category, but rather to a certain kind of AGR (i.e., to the verbal inflections that
identify empty subjects). Given the notation (AGR,e) adopted above, it is more
adequate to say that what functions as an anaphor is not just AGR, but rather the
7A number of alternative formulations of these definitions may be found in the literature, which
however do not concern us here.
(AGR, e) chain. Restated in this way, Borer's idea is vital for the Romanian data, in
which the controlled subject is identified by AGR features.
The present analysis however differs from Borer (or at least from a possible
interpretation of Borer's proposal), and approaches that of Bouchard and Kster,
insofar as it assumes that a controlled element (be it an empty category, AGR, or
(AGR, e)) is not intrinsically marked as an anaphor 8 but has the status of a
contextual anaphor.
The distinction between contextual and intrinsic anaphors is particularly clear if
we consider their relation to principle A. This principle has the status of a wellformedness condition on intrinsic anaphors; contextual anaphors on the other hand
are not constrained by this principle but rather defined by it:
(8)
A contextual anaphor is an element which obeys principle A.
In other words, principle A of binding theory is tautological for contextual

anaphors, whereas for intrinsic anaphors it has the role of a syntactic constraint. A
very clear illustration concerns French reflexives (the same is true of the other
Romance languages):
(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Jej mej lave ej.

Tuj mej laves e
Jeanj sej lave ei.
* tuj sej lave
In (9)a, but not in (9)b, me (this is true of all first and second person object clitics)
is bound in its governing category; this means that me is an anaphor in (9)a and a
pronoun in (9)b. To assume distinct intrinsic ("anaphoric" versus "pronominal")
features for me in (9)a and (9)b seems entirely stipulative; it seems more
satisfactory to say that the anaphoric versus pronominal status of me is contextually
determined: in (9)a principle A is obeyed, and this assigns an anaphoric status to
me, whereas in (9)b principle A is violated, and this assigns a pronominal status to
me. Compare the case of se, which is inherently marked as an anaphor, and as such
must obey principle A ((9)d is ruled out because it violates principle A).
To summarize our discussion, intrinsic anaphors are also necessarily
"contextual" anaphors (in as far as they are bound to participate in an anaphoric
relation), but conversely contextual anaphors are elements that participate in an
anaphoric relation, but are not intrinsically marked with the [+an] feature, and as
such are not necessarily subject to principle A of binding theory (and hence may
function as pronominal elements).
Let us now come back to the subjects of subjunctives in Romanian. Clearly, they
differ from se, and behave much like me/te:
(10)
a. Vreau proj s piece proj miine.

[I] want s [he/she] leave tomorrow
b. Eu a vrea ca Ionj s piece miine, dar Mariaj vrea neaprat s piece proj/j
poimiine.
8Borer explicitly mentions anaphoric inherent features for AGR, but her analysis may be
interpreted in terms of contextual identification.
I would like that Johni leave tomorrow, but Maryj wants very much that
(proj/j) leave the day after tomorrow
c. Eu ap vrea ca Ionj s piece miine, dar Manaj m-a convins c trebuie proj/j
s piece poimiine.
[I] would like that Johni leave tomorrow, but Maryj convinced me that
must proj/j leave after tomorrow
In (10)a-c the subject of the subjunctives does not function as an anaphor, because
it is not subject to principle A of binding theory; it behaves instead as a pronoun.
Compare the examples in (1), in which the subject of the subjunctives is allowed to
participate in a binding relation, which is imposed by obligatory control verbs. In
other words, Romanian controlled subjects are not intrinsic anaphors, but only
"contextual" anaphors: the inherent features of AGR are neutral with respect to the
[+an] and [-an] specification; AGR is compatible with both of them, the choice
depending on the context.
This distinction between intrinsic and contextual anaphors allows us to keep the
subject of Romanian subjunctives distinct from infinitival subjects, while
accounting for their common properties. This is a departure from Borer, who
assimilates PRO to "anaphoric AGR"; I take anaphoric AGR, in particular the
subject of Romanian subjunctives, to be a contextual anaphor, whereas PRO - or
rather the infinitival subject, since given the above analysis there is no PRO in our
grammar - is necessarily an anaphor. This does not imply the assumption of an
intrinsic [+an] feature that would characterize infinitival subjects: infinitival subjects
are empty categories that are identified by no features (compare pro, which is
identified by AGR), and therefore they must necessarily enter a relation with an
antecedent that provides them with features, which are necessary for the assignment
of reference. The relations that infinitival subjects have with their antecedents are of
different types: we assume obligatory control to be governed by binding theory;
optional (and arbitrary) control is probably captured by Manzini's theory, but we
shall leave this case aside.
To sum up, the theory of control that will be adopted essentially follows the
hypothesis according to which obligatory control reduces to binding theory. The
object of this theory is not a particular type of linguistic element (be it PRO, an
anaphoric empty category, or anaphoric AGR), but rather a particular type of
linguistic relation, namely anaphoric binding. For convenience, we shall speak of
the "controlled" or "anaphoric" element, but the reader should keep in mind that this
label does not designate intrinsic features.
The theory of control sketched above concerns only the syntactic aspect of the
phenomenon, but it also implicitly supposes a lexical aspect. It will be assumed
here that obligatory-control effects are imposed by the lexical properties of control
verbs (start, try, etc.). Principles pertaining to the interface between semantics and
syntax must explain why obligatory-control effects, i.e., the obligatory coreference
of the embedded subject with an element of the main clause, are necessarily
expressed by means of an anaphoric relation. At this point the syntactic aspect of
control comes in: anaphoric relations are the object of a syntactic module, binding
theory.
Coming back to the Romanian data presented in this section, it can be
summarized by the following generalizations: i) in Romanian no kind of subject
(neither in subjunctives nor in infinitives) is necessarily assigned anaphoric status.
This contrasts with French and English infinitival subjects, which are necessarily
anaphoric (i.e., either PROs or NP-traces; we leave aside Exceptional Case
Marking); ii) Romanian subjunctives (and infinitives, see 3.1.) may be controlled,
but need not be; (iii) Romanian indicatives cannot be controlled.
These generalizations indicate that for Romanian the "control problem" cannot
be the search for those properties that impose control. This is what is generally
done for English or French, where infinitives are necessarily controlled; the crucial
property is to find out that property of infinitives which accounts for their being
necessarily controlled. There is however a "control problem" in Romanian, namely
the understanding of the syntactic properties that allow control. To sum up, the
control question concerns the necessity of control in English and French, but only
the possibility of control in Romanian. For the latter language it is only possible to
state the syntactic conditions that allow a control configuration, but it is impossible
to state the conditions under which control is obligatory. These syntactic conditions
must be distinguished from lexical requirements: with both Romanian subjunctives
and French/English infinitives control properties are imposed by the lexical
properties of the main verb. Subjunctive clauses are either obligatorily or optionally
controlled, or not controlled at all, depending on the lexical specifications of the
main verb.
Our present task is then to answer the following two questions: a) why do the
subjects of subjunctives qualify as anaphors in Romanian, but not in English or
French; b) why is the definition of anaphors not satisfied by the subjects of
Romanian indicatives?
Before answering these questions, we will show that they are also posed by the
subject raising phenomenon and by the lack of obviation illustrated respectively in
(3) and (2).
4. 4. Subject raising
Let us now consider subject raising:
(11)
a. Top' biepi-s-au niment s fie ti bolnavi.

all the boys happened [that they] s besubj+AGR ill
b. Copiii ti par s fie t foarte obosip.
your children seem [that they] s beSubj+AGR very tired
It is currently assumed that NP-traces, and in particular the traces of raised subjects,
have the status of anaphors, i.e., they must be bound in their governing category.
This explains why subject raising applies to infinitival subjects, but not to subjects
of tensed clauses: a tensed clause is a governing category for its subject, so that an
element which occupies the subject position cannot be bound by the subject of the
main clause. Infinitival clauses on the other hand do not count as governing
categories for their subject, and therefore an anaphoric relation between the
embedded and the main subject positions is legitimate. NP-traces are also subject to
the ECP; in other words they must be properly governed, and it is currently
assumed that this condition is met in those infinitives that do not project CP, but
only IP (an alternative equivalent formulation is to say that obligatory CP deletion
Subject amphors in subjunctive clauses 119
applies). To be more precise, the S-structure representation of raising constructions

would be like that in (12), where e is an NP-trace:
(12)
Johnj seems [ip e, to go]
Control configurations are currently assumed (see Chomsky (1981)) to differ from
(12), in that CP is projected:
(13)
Johnj tries[CP[lPei to go]]
A structure such as (13) would ensure that e is not governed by the main verb, the
consequence being that e cannot be an NP-trace, but PRO. Kster (1978a, 1984,
1987) has argued convincingly that this hypothesis may be correct for optional
control, but not for obligatory control (and in particular not for try, start, etc.).
According to Kster, subject raising and obligatory control rely on the same
configurational structure, characterized by the absence of Comp. This hypothesis is
empirically supported9 by evidence concerning the distribution of infinitival
complements in Dutch.10
The Romanian data examined here provides further evidence in favour of the
same analysis. Before we turn to a precise discussion, it should be noted that
Koster's terminology may be confusing: the obligatorily controlled empty subject is
referred to as "governed PRO" or "anaphoric PRO", or "obligatory PRO". Given
the current theory of PRO these labels are contradictory. As far as I can see Kster
has preserved PRO in order to capture the control properties which distinguish
examples such as (13) from subject raising (see (12)). However, this distinction
is independently captured by th-theory; the underlying th-chains corresponding to
(12) and (13) are different:
(14) a. (NP, e)
b. (NP) (e)
The empty categories in (14)a-b both qualify as anaphors. That in (14)a is also
an NP-trace; this label is simply a descriptive statement of the fact that the empty
category and its NP antecedent belong to the same th-chain. To put it otherwise, the
label "NP-trace" captures information concerning the underlying th-chain, and so
does PRO (this element does not belong to the same th-chain as its antecedent). But
given the modular form of our present theory it is not necessary to establish classes
of linguistic elements on the basis of the type of chain in which they may
^There are of course a number of potential objections. It is a well-known fact (see Kayne (1984))
that in French the complementizer de is allowed to precede an obligatorily controlled subject, but
not the trace of a raised subject. If, following Kster, we want to give up the difference between
PRO and NP-trace, the differential distribution of de might perhaps be captured by taking into
account the difference in chain configuration: NP-traces, but not PRO, belong to the same chain
as their antecedent. For a discussion of other problems I refer the reader to Kster (1987: 1 19).
^Subject raising, obligatory control and exceptional Case marking behave alike (the embedded
infinitives show up on the left of the matrix verb, no Comp element is allowed, nor is the
infinitival particle te), and differ from optional control (the embedded infinitives are extraposed,
i.e., they appear on the right of the matrix verb).
participate. Indeed, NP-traces and reflexives are classed together as anaphors, i.e.,
as elements that are constrained by principle A, and no sub-classes are established
to capture the fact that NP-traces, but not reflexives, belong to the same th-chain as
their antecedent. Given this theory, I see no reason why two distinct types of empty
categories should be postulated for NP-traces (in particular those resulting from
raising) and obligatorily controlled subjects; they both qualify as anaphors, but
differ with respect to th-theory.
To summarize, Koster's approach correlates two hypotheses: (a) an analysis of
control in terms of anaphoric binding and (b) the hypothesis that control and
subject-raising rely on the same underlying configuration. Such a correlation seems
necessary, since NP-raising is standardly assumed to rely on anaphoric binding.
But see Borer (1987), who tries to avoid this consequence of her hypothesis, by
stipulating that raising verbs subcategorize an IP complement, whereas control
verbs subcategorize CP characterized by Move (V-)I to Comp. Such a stipulated
difference between raising and control is not supported by empirical evidence in
Romanian.
Let us now tum to the subject of Romanian subjunctives. The data illustrated in
(11) introduces a new problem into the picture we have just drawn: what counts as
an NP-trace is not a "simple" empty category (as in the standard case illustrated in
(12)), but a null subject that we have notated (AGR,e). The relation between the
raised NP and its trace is mediated by AGR, in that AGR is part of the chain which
links the NP-trace to its antecedent. Rather than an (NP, e) chain we have an (NP,
AGR, e) chain; the empty category appears to count both as a pronominal
(identified by AGR) and as an NP-trace.
This type of chain cannot be postulated under the standard assumption that nonhead members of chains are necessarily empty categories (see Chomsky (1981)).
The Romanian data indicates that this assumption must be modified by allowing
certain lexical elements, such as verbal inflections, as non-head members of chains.
This is not an isolated case: in Chapter 5 (see also Rizzi (1986b)) it will be assumed
that middle si constructions rely on chains of the type (NP, se, e) and in Chapter 6 a
type of wh-movement will be discussed, which relies on an A'-chain of the type
(wh,cl,e), where the wh-trace is "doubled" by a clitic. It thus appears that AGR and
clitics may qualify as legitimate intermediate chain-links; note that these elements
occupy A'-positions, and therefore the condition concerning chain-links may be
relaxed so as to allow for the presence of overt elements that occupy A'-positions
(but not A-positions).
4. 5. Obviation
Consider example (15)a and compare it to its French counterparts in (15)b-c:
(15) a. Ion vrea s piece devreme miine.
John wants that (he) leaveSubj early tomorrow
b. *Jeanj veut qu 'ilj parte tot demain matin.
c. Jeanj veut qu'iljparte tot demain matin.
(15)b illustrates the obviation effect: the subject of a subjunctive clause cannot corefer with the main subject.11 Two main types of explanation have been proposed.
We may assume that the governing category of subjunctives is the main clause (this
characteristic would be due to the particular type of Tense features that characterize
subjunctives); hence (15)b would violate principle B, because the embedded
subject, a pronominal, would be incorrectly bound by the matrix subject (for this
type of proposal see Jakubowicz (1985); Kempchinsky (1985); Picallo (1985)).
We may alternatively assume that subjunctive clauses define a governing category
for their subject. Under this hypothesis the binding conditions are not violated in
(15)b: the embedded subject is free in its governing category (the embedded
clause). The ungrammaticality of (15)b has then to be captured by additional
principles (Bouchard (1984); Suffer (1986); Everaert (1986)).
We will adopt the latter hypothesis, and propose that (16) is the principle
responsible for the obviation effect:
(16) Use an anaphor instead of a pronoun whenever possible.
(16) can be viewed as a particular case of the Avoid Pronoun Principle: 12 if in a
given configuration we have the choice between a pronominal subject and an
anaphoric subject, the second option will necessarily be selected. The
ungrammaticality of (15)b can then be accounted for in the following way: (15)b
does not rely on a legitimate anaphoric relation in French, and there exists such a
legitimate anaphoric configuration, that in which the embedded clause is an
infinitive.
Given (16), the lack of obviation effects that characterizes Romanian subjunctive
clauses reduces to the property discussed in Section 4.3. above, namely the fact that
they are accessible to anaphoric binding. In other words, if we are able to answer
the question stated at the end of Section 4.3., we solve not only the control
problem, but also the obviation problem raised by Romanian subjunctives.
Our analysis differs from the one proposed by Rivero (1987), who considers
that in those examples illustrating the lack of the obviation effect, the subject of
Romanian subjunctives is a pronoun whose governing category is the embedded
clause. This hypothesis raises an important difficulty: Romanian subjunctives also
allow for subject raising, and in this case Rivero is forced to assume that the
governing category of subjunctives is the main clause. Moreover, under Rivera's
analysis of the obviation effect the contrast between Romanian and the other
Romance languages is unclear (see also the discussion at the end of this chapter).
11rhis generalization should probably be relaxed: a number of interesting exceptions do exist (see
Ruwet (1984) and the discussion at the end of Section 4.7.).
12
Chomsky (1981) uses the Avoid Pronoun principle in order to account for the fact that in
English, Genitive pronouns may be dropped in certain NPs. Jaeggli (1982) uses the same
principle to capture the fact that empty subjects and object clitics are used instead of
phonologically realized pronominal subjects and non-clitic pronominal objects respectively.
Chomsky (1981: 142, fn. 45) also reports a suggestion by J. Gudron, who proposes to derive the
obviation effect from Avoid Pronoun.
4. 6. The constituent structure of Romanian subjunctives

To answer the question formulated above, as to why the subjects of Romanian
subjunctives qualify as anaphors, we have to recall our discussion of the
constituent structure of Romanian subjunctive clauses. In chapter 3 a principle of
Restructuring incorporation was proposed, by virtue of which s merges with Infi
and also indirectly with the verb, because at S-structure the verb necessarily raises
to Infi. As indicated by various constituency tests, this incorporation process
results in a "post-syntactic" word, 13 i.e., a complex X category, s (Neg cl) VTense-AGR. Thus the Infl-like behaviour of s - due to incorporation - and its
"Comp" nature - due to the position in which it is generated - are reconciled. The
categorial label of s fie 's be s u bj' in (11) would then be something like C/I/V,
which would project a C/I/VP constituent. Romanian subjunctives would be
C/I/VP constituents, and not CP constituents, like English or French subjunctives.
It has also been established that the C / W P status of s subjunctives is independent
of the exact status that one may assume for s: even if we consider s to be under
Infi, its projection is a CP/IP/ VP "matching projection" (see Haider (1988)).
As previously mentioned, it is not completely clear that Restructuring
Incorporation operates in Romanian subjunctives. The strong coherence characteristic of the s... V+Icluster might instead be due to Functional Coindexation.
4.7. The governing category of the subject of Romanian subjunctives

We are now able to answer the questions raised at the end of Section 4.3. The main
problem is to understand why the main clause counts as the governing category for
the null subject of subjunctives,14 a discontinuous element that we have notated
(AGR, e), i.e., an empty category which is identified by the AGR inflections on the
verb. Since a governing category for an element X is the minimal IP or CP which
contains X and its head governor, the governing category of a subjunctive (AGR,
e) element is the minimal IP projection which contains the governor of (AGR, e). If
we assume that the governor of (AGR, e) is the governor of AGR, the problem is
reduced to an identification of the governor of AGR. In an example such as (17)
AGR is located under V-Infl, and its governor is the next head category, i.e., s:
(17)
Ion va incerca [c/i/vps [ipfv-infl piece] e t v mline]]

4
I
John will try
s
leave tomorrow
Consequently, the governing category of AGR would be the projection of s, i.e.,

the embedded subjunctive clause. This is not the result that we are looking for. Let
us then assume that s cannot be the governor of AGR because of the
13
Cf. Shibatani and Kageyama (1988).

The data analyzed here does not represent a case of the long-distance binding phenomenon
characteristic of certain Germanic languages. Long-distance binding seems to be restricted to the
anaphoric relation that holds between two distinct th-chains; NP movement is necessarily local.
The data examined here shows that subject raising (i.e., NP-movement) is allowed under the same
conditions as control.
14
Subject anaphars in subjunctive clauses 123
Restructuring incorporation process discussed above: at S-structure AGR and s

belong to the same complex X constituent, [Comp-V-Infl]; none of the elements
belonging to this cluster is allowed to assume the status of head governor relative to
another element of the cluster. 15 This amounts to saying that because of
Restructuring incorporation, Comp is not a governor for AGR; the next possible
governor is the main verb, and consequently the main clause (which is the first IP
projection containing the main verb) constitutes the governing category for AGR.
We thus obtain the required result, i.e., the fact that the main clause counts as the
governing category of the subject of the embedded subjunctive clause, which in
turn accounts for the fact that the subjects of subjunctives can be bound by an
element in the main clause.
The same result can be obtained if we assume (a) that Functional Coindexation
rather than Restructuring Incorporation is the relevant relation between s
...V+Tense+AGR and (b) that s cannot count as a head governor for AGR. The
latter assumption could be derived as a consequence of the principle stated in (18):
(18)
An element which is functionally coindexed with an element does not

count as a head governor for .
According to this analysis, the null subject of Romanian s subjunctives may

assume the status of an anaphor, but it is not marked with intrinsic anaphoric
features; its anaphoric or pronominal status depends on the linguistic context, and
in particular on the main verb. With obligatory control verbs the null subject of
subjunctives takes on an anaphoric status, and in the absence of such a verb, it
takes on a pronominal status. Contexts in which subjunctive subjects cannot
assume an anaphoric status because of the syntactic environment will now be
considered.
In languages like French and English, Restructuring incorporation betweeen
Comp and Infi cannot apply, because the (Spec, IP) position breaks strict
adjacency. Consequently the Comp element counts as a governor for the embedded
subject position, and correlatively the CP constituent counts as the governing
category of the elements that occupy the subject position. 16 This analysis explains
why the subjects of subjunctives cannot assume the status of anaphors in English
or French. More interestingly, this generalization extends to the null subjects of
subjunctives in Italian and Spanish.
The present account of the Romanian data predicts that the subject of a
subjunctive will not be able to enter into an anaphoric relation if Comp and V+I are
not subject to Restructuring Incorporation (or Functional Coindexation). This is in
fact what happens in ca subjunctives: ca takes as a complement a s subjunctive
15
AS already discussed in Chapter 3, an element X belonging to a sequence resulting from

Restructuring incorporation is nonetheless able to block the Head movement of an Y element
belonging to the same sequence. This blocking ability is however not due to the fact that X
counts as a head governor, but only as an antecedent governor.
16
This hypothesis should be rendered compatible with A. Rochette's (1988) hypothesis,
according to which Romance subjunctives are IP, rather than CP constituents. It may be assumed
that even if Comp does not function as the head of CP (probably because of the type of Tense
features that it dominates, cf. Section 3.2.4.), it nonetheless functions as the minimal governor of
the subject, whose governing category will therefore be the subjunctive clause.
preceded by a dislocated constituent, which blocks Restructuring incorporation

between ca and s V-Tense-AGR:
(19)
Ion vrea ca pe Mana s-o ajute numai Petre.

John wants that Mary s-her help only Peter
'John wants Mary to be helped only by Peter.'
In (19) ca is possible because no anaphoric relation exists between the embedded

subject and the main clause. Compare (20)-(21):
(20) a. Ion incepe s-o ajute pe Mana.
John starts that (he) helpSubj Maria
b. Ion a incercat s-l pedepseasc pe Mihai.
John tried that (he) punishSubj Mihai
c. Ion va indrzni s-l infrunte pe profesor.
John will dare that (he) contradictsubj the teacher
(21) a. *Ion incepe ca pe Mana s-o ajute.
b. *Ion a incercat ca pe Mihai s-l pedepseasc.
C. *Ion va indrzni ca pe profesor s-l infrunte.
Examples (20), without ca (and without dislocation) are correct. In (21) ca is
precluded17 because the main verb imposes obligatory control18 (i.e., an anaphoric
relation).
This discussion extends straightforwardly to Romanian indicatives: for reasons
presented in Section 3.2.5. the complementizer c cannot reanalyze with the
inflected verb; therefore c counts as a governor for AGR and correlatively the
governing category of indicative AGR is the CP that immediately dominates it. This
17
Apparent counterexamples exist:
(i)
I-am perm is lui Ion ca miine s stea acas.
[I] him-have allowed to John that tomorrow s [he] stay-subjunctive at home
Examples of this type (which are not perfectly grammatical to my ear) differ from (21) in that the
controller is not the main clause subject, but the indirect object. Lack of obviation can be
observed in Romance languages other than Romanian in similar cases (see Picallo (1985) and
Jakubowicz (1985)):
(ii)
Le permitir6 /dir6 a Juan que 61 entregus el premio.
himat [I] shall allow/ tell Johno a t that he give the prize
The explanation of the grammaticality of (i) will then be the same as the one that we may be led
to propose for (ii). Since the indirect object in the matrix clause probably does not C-command
the embedded subject position, we cannot assume that examples such as (i) rely on an anaphoric
relation (see the definition in (7)). In fact the verbs in (i) and (ii) are not obligatory control verbs,
and as such they do not fall under binding theory (see Kster (1987)). That is why a pronominal
may be used in (ii); the same is true for (i), where the subject of the subjunctive can only be taken
to be a pronominal (given both the presence of ca and the lack of C-command between the two
relevant elements).
I n substandard Romanian ca may show up in front of s subjunctives which lack a dislocated
constituent. However, even for this dialect, ca s subjunctives are ungrammatical with obligatory
control and raising verbs: to be specific, the examples in (21) are ungrammatical even if we delete
the dislocated constituents and maintain ca in front of s. This indicates that ca does function as a
governor of AGR, even if ca is apparently adjacent to s, and in principle functional reanalysis
could apply (for further discussion see Section 3.2.3.).
Subject anaphors in subjunctive clauses
125
explains why the subjects of Romanian indicatives cannot be bound by an element

in the main clause.
To summarize, it has been shown that, due to their particular structure,
Romanian s subjunctives, as opposed to ca subjunctives and indicatives, are
transparent for the binding of their subject by an antecedent in the main clause.
Given the hypothesis that control represents a case of anaphoric binding, the
Romanian data concerning control are accounted for.
As to subject raising, let us consider in turn two possible hypotheses. One
possibility is to assume that examples such as (11) rely on chains of the type (NP,
e), where e is the null subject of the subjunctive and NP stands for the raised
subject. The problem is that the relation between these two elements does not
satisfy the binding condition to which anaphors must obey: the null subject is
governed by the C-V-I element, and by way of consequence the governing
category of the subject is the embedded C/WP; since the main subject is outside
this CP, the NP-trace violates principle A of binding theory (it is not bound in its
governing category) and examples (11) should be ungrammatical, which is not the
case. Let us then turn to the second possibility, already proposed in Section 4.4.,
namely a complex chain of the type (NP, AGR, e). Each link of this chain satisfies
the condition on anaphors: e is bound by AGR in C/I/VP and AGR is bound by
NP in the main clause,19 as explained above for the control cases.
Let us finally reconsider obviation effects. Examples (2) are legitimate control
configurations in Romanian, on a par with the obligatory control cases in (1).
Hence, the lack of obviation, analyzed here as a case of the Avoid Pronoun
strategy, is only apparent. This account predicts that ca will be disallowed in (2),
just as it is illicit in (1); but this prediction seems to be contradicted:
(22)
A vrea proj ca miine
splec
proj la
munte.
[I] would like that tomorrow s [I] leave for the mountains
This type of Romanian example is comparable to well-known marginal exceptions
concerning obviation effects studied by Ruwet (1984):
(23)
?/ei voudrais bien/j'aimerais bien que jej sois enfw autoris6 partir en Israel.
(A number of French native speakers insisted that a question mark [or two]
should precede Ruwet's examples.)
Given (16), the problem in (22) and (23) is that a pronoun is used instead of an
anaphor. This possibility seems to be related to the fact that the event referred to in
19 T his anaphoric relation is broken by ca; subject raising is excluded in ca subjunctives, as
pointed out by Grosu and Horvath (1987)):
(i)
* To(i elevii. s-au nimerit
pa exercifiul sta t. s-1 gregeasc].
(ii)
all the students happened [that this exercise s -it [they] fail]
*Bombele.pot
ca in orice moment t. s explodeze],
(iii)
the bombs may [that at any moment s [they] explode]

* Copiii ti. par
cape profesor t. s fie supraji],
your children seem [that the teacher s[they] are angry with]
This ungrammaticality is expected, for the reasons presented above (see the impossibility of
control in ca subjunctives).
the embedded clause is viewed as distinct from the event referred to in the main
clause: the "distance" between the two events is marked by the conditional mood,
by the passive, by negation, etc. We may suggest that anaphoric binding is not an
obligatory choice for this type of looser relation; coreference between two
pronouns belonging to two distinct governing categories is sufficient. Beyond this
similarity, the Romanian cases of the type in (22) differ from the French situation
by being completely grammatical, and extremely productive.
One may wonder whether the present account is not completely circular for
Romanian: we postulate that the [AGR,e] chain is pronominal in ca subjunctives
(see (23)) and anaphoric in s subjunctives (see (2)), but there does not seem to be
any empirical argument in favour of this analysis. This is indeed true if we take into
account only (22) and (2), i.e., if we consider the obviation problem in isolation.
But the obviation problem cannot be understood independently of control. And
obligatory control gives us an empirical argument in favour of the proposed
analysis of obviation: the cases of obligatory control show that an anaphoric
relation is precluded in ca subjunctives; therefore we cannot assume that (22) is a
case of binding.
4. 8. The null subject of Romanian infinitives

Our analysis of anaphoric subjects in subjunctives extends to infinitives. As we
have already mentioned, Romanian infinitival subjects cannot be assumed to be
PRO, because they are not in complementary distribution with lexical subjects.
Note however that Romanian infinitival null subjects are not identified by any AGR
features (compare Portuguese inflected infinitives), and therefore can be assigned
reference only indirectly, by virtue of the relation they entertain with an antecedent.
They are either anaphors (i.e., obligatorily controlled or NP-traces) or optionally
controlled (with arbitrary control as a particular case). Thus, the obligatory presence
of an antecedent should not be viewed as a characteristic of PRO but rather as a
consequence of the lack of AGR features.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we will compare the analysis proposed here to that in Rivero (1987),
who examines subject raising and obviation, while leaving aside the control
problem.20 Rivero assumes that Romanian clauses present the constituent structure
characteristic of the other Romance languages (and of English): ca occupies the
Comp position, s would be under an idiosyncratic Infi position, distinct from the
AGR/ Tense slot to which the verb raises. The NP subject, dominated by (Spec,
IP), enters into two distinct government relations, with the Infi node, and with the
main verb; the latter would be able to govern (Spec, IP), because IP does not
constitute a barrier in Romanian, due to a paramedical option, the coindexation
20
Rivero discusses also a problem concerning the focalization of the subject of subjunctives (cf.
Picallo (1984)), which I have left aside because the grammaticality judgments are not clear to me.
Subject amphors in subjunctive clauses 127
between CP and IP. 21 Rivero admits that this coindexation is not sufficient to
account for the Romanian data, and therefore two further stipulations are
introduced: a) for certain dialects of Romanian functional categories such as Comp
do not have the status of governors for minimality; b) an indicative Comp projects a
category which counts as an inherent barrier.
According to the analysis proposed here the cases in which functional categories
do not count as minimal head governors are due to the mechanism of Restructuring
incorporation (or Functional Coindexation). The behaviour of s subjunctives is
due to the fact that s, unlike ca and c, is allowed to incorporate onto/be
functionally coindexed with V-Infl. This analysis directly accounts for the contrast
between s subjunctives on the one hand, and ca subjunctives and indicatives on
the other. The adjacency condition, which constrains both Functional Coindexation
and Restructuring incorporation, allows the Comp node not to count as a minimal
head governor for Infi in a language characterized by an IP-constituent in which VInfl occupies the initial position. Thus, the specific properties of Romanian
subjunctives may be derived from the specific structure of IP constituents in the
language.
An important argument in favour of the coindexation between Comp and Infi does exist,
namely the fact that the subjunctive Comp elements (ca and s) are phonetically distinct from c,
which heads indicative and conditional embedded clauses. We may however observe that the
relationship between Comp and Infi is not restricted to Romanian; even in languages that do not
present any overt manifestation of agreement between Comp and Infi, we must assume an abstract
relation between these two elements (cf. Safir and Pesetsky (1981); Safir (1981)), which could be
formalized in terms of coindexation.
S. Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)transitives

Introduction
Intransitive verbs are allowed to passivize in some languages, as opposed to others.
This crosslinguistic variation has been analyzed in terms of parameters regarding
the Case assigning properties of intransitives (see Jaeggli (1986a)) or the Case
absorption properties of passive morphemes (see Marantz (1984) and Baker
(1988)). In this chapter I will argue that neither passives nor intransitives need be
parametrized; the above-mentioned crosslinguistic differences are due instead to the
existence of various types of impersonal constructions.
Starting with the observation that the passivizability of intransitives covaries
crosslinguistically with the passivizability of transitives with null prototypical
objects (see German es wurde gespielt/gegessen 'it was played/eaten' as opposed to
Romanian *a fost jucat/ *a fost mincat), I propose an analysis based on the idea that
intransitives present essentially the same underlying structure as transitives with
null prototypical objects; more precisely they involve a null cognate object, which is
constrained by a referentiality condition. In pro-drop Romance languages
(Romanian in particular) the passivization of intransitives is precluded, because the
chain underlying the externalized null prototypical argument is of the form (pro, e),
which is necessarily indexed (as a result of indexing conventions, to be proposed
below), and this violates a condition on null prototypical objects. Compare the
chain configurations characteristic of French impersonals (see Pollock 1981,1983),
which present two distinct chains, (il) and (pro), where pro occupies the object
position. No violation of the indexing condition arises in this case, because by the
procedure of free assignment of indices, one-member chains are allowed to stay
unindexed. Hence the grammaticality of French passive intransitives.
Middle/passive se combines with intransitives in Romanian, but not in French.
Thus, both Romanian and French present important contrasts between copula
passives and middle/passive se, which forces us to give up the current idea that the
two constructions should be assigned the same analysis. My account will build on
an obvious difference: middle/passive se constructions, as opposed to copula
passives, rely on a three-member chain which contains se as an intermediate link
between the subject and object position.
The analysis of Romanian to be proposed below will shed new light on
Romance constructions of the type si dorme, which are currently assumed to rely
on impersonal si, i.e. a Nominative/subject clitic with arbitrary reference
comparable to the French on 'one'. It will be shown that this analysis cannot be
adopted for Romanian, and it will be proposed instead that the se that appears with
intransitives can be analyzed as middle/passive se. This analysis predicts that in
Italian si dorme is ambiguous between a middle/passive si (which should be
allowed for the same reasons that allow this construction in Romanian) and a
Nominative/subject si (which is independently motivated in Italian). Cinque's
(1988) data are a striking confirmation of this prediction.
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1,1 discuss passive intransitives
and passive transitives with null prototypical objects, and propose an account for
the crosslinguistic variation displayed by these constructions. Section 2 is devoted
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)transitives 129
to middle/passive se/si with intransitives. Finally, the differences between

middle/passive se/si and subject se/si are examined in Section 3.
5. 1. Passives with (in)transitives
5. 1. 1. The data
Consider the following contrast between French and Romanian passives:
(1)
a. II sera proc6d6 une enquete.

it will be proceeded to an inquiry
'An inquiry will be undertaken.'
b. II sera parte de vous la semaine prochaine.
it will be discussed about you next week
c. II a abouti un compromis acceptable.
it was arrived at / reached an acceptable compromise
'An acceptable compromise was reached.'
d. II lui a dessus.
it himoat was shot at
'He was shot at.'
e. II lui a 3//5&
de partir.
it himat was asked/ ordered/ suggested to leave

'He was asked/ ordered/ suggested to leave.'
(2)
a. ??/7 a ensuite couru jusqu' la gare.

it was then run to the station
b. 1 a
construit surpilotis ( cet endroit).
it was already built on piles (in this place)
c. ??//a appareilte4hdumatin.
it was set sail at 4 h in the morning
d. V.Mais, il a dj mangdans cette assiette.
but, it was already eaten in this plate
(3)
a. * Va procedat la anchet.
[it] will be proceeded to an inquiry
b. *Va R vorbii de dumneavoasir sptmina viitoare.
[it] will be spoken about you next week
c. *A fost ajuns/parvenit la un compromis acceptabil.
[it] was arrived at / reached an acceptable compromise
d. *A fosi tras in el.
[it] was shot at him
e. *I-a fost cerut/ordonai/sugerai de a pleca (spiece).
[it] himoat was asked/ ordered/ suggested to leave
f. *A fost apoi alergaipin la gar.
[it] was then run to the station
g. *A fost deja construit pe piloti (in acest loc).
[it] was already built on piles (in this place)
h. *A fosi apareiai la ora 4 dimineafa.
[it] was set sail at 4 h in the morning
i. *Dar, a fost deja mincat in farfima asta.

but, [it] was already eaten in this plate
((3)a-e are the Romanian counterparts of (1); (3)f-i correspond to (2))
Examples (1) and (2) show that French "pure" intransitives1 fall into two distinct
groups: the passive construction is grammatical if a subcategorized element is
present, but marginal with adjuncts. Thus, examples of the type in (1) are
productive and acceptable for most speakers, whereas examples (2) illustrate a
marked construction, whose acceptability varies from one speaker to another (see
Rivifcre (1979), Zribi-Hertz (1982), from whom I have borrowed most of the
examples). Compare the ungrammaticality shown in (3), which is completely
general in Romanian: it holds for the whole class of intransitives.
The ungrammaticality of (3) and the low acceptability of (2) cannot be attributed
to a general incompatibility between the properties characteristic of intransitives and
the passive phenomenon. In a number of languages, intransitives normally
passivize, and such constructions do not show any marked character:
(4)
Es wurde getanzt/gespielt.
it was danced/ played
The existence of passive intransitives seems problematic for the current hypothesis
(see Chomsky (1981)) stated in (5):
(5)
The passive phenomenon triggers (a) the non-assignment of the external throle and (b) the non-assignment of objective Case.2
Given the idea that intransitives are not assigners of objective Case, the nonassignment of objective Case required in (5) would apply vacuously in passive
intransitives, and this is not allowed (see Burzio (1981, 1986) and Marantz
(1984)). In a number of recent studies this problem is solved by assuming that (5)a
is the only general property of passives; the property stated in (5)b is
parametrizable, the various possible choices being responsible for the
crosslinguistic variation illustrated in (l)-(4):
(6)
The passive morpheme must receive (or trigger the non-assignment of)
abstract Case in certain languages (see English, Romance languages other
than French), but not in others (see Norwegian, Ukrainian, etc.)
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the properties of intransitives may vary:
'The behaviour of ergatives/unaccusatives will be discussed in subsequent sections, see in
particular 5.3.2.
2
(5) is supposed to characterize the common properties of various syntactic structures (see copula
passives, morphological passives, English middles, Romance middle/passive si, etc.); the precise
relation between a particular syntactic configuration and (5)a-b is not made explicit. In a number
of recent studies (see in particular Belletti (1982), Jaeggli (1986a); Marantz (1984)) it is assumed
that the properties stated in (5) derive from the fact that the "passive morpheme" absorbs the
relevant th-role and Case.

(7)
In certain languages (see German), but not in others, intransitives assign

structural Case.
Both of these proposals 3 (see Marantz (1984) and Baker (1988) for (6), and
Jaeggli (1986a) for (7)), seem inadequate for a number of reasons. TTie first
objection is simply their ad-hoc character: given the standard definition of passives
in terms of Case, any counterexample is handled by a modification, or
parametrization, of the assumption itself, with no independent evidence in favour of
such a proposal. Moreover, (7) is also empirically inadequate. Thus, intransitives
do assign Case unproblematically whenever they take a cognate object, and this
possibility is extremely common crosslinguistically; in particular, those languages
that preclude passive intransitives freely allow cognate objects, see the Romanian
examples in (8)a-b:
(8)
a. Ap luptat lupt de$art.

(Eminescu)
[you] have fought useless fight
b. D-m, maic, unde trag, s triesc traiul cu drag, (folk song)
Let-me go, mother, where I wish, to live the life with pleasure
As any overt NP, cognate objects are subject to the Case Filter. It thus appears that
objective Case can be assigned by an intransitive whenever it is needed, i.e.,
whenever a direct object appears. Since objective Case can be assigned in (8),
intransitives can be viewed as virtual assigners of objective Case,4 contrary to the
hypothesis concerning the parametrization of the Case-assigning properties of
intransitives. The assignment of objective Case thus appears to be irrelevant for the
problem at hand. In other words, the Case problem raised by passive intransitives
is only apparent; the real reason for the impossibility of (3) remains to be
discovered.
Another important observation concerns the passivization of transitives with null
prototypical objects:
(9)
a. Es wurde bis spt in die Nacht gegessen / getrunken.

it was till late in the night eaten/ drunk
'Eating/ drinking went on till late at night'
b. ??// a mang6/ bu ici r6cemment.
it was eaten/ drunk here recently
c. * A fost mincat/ but aid de curind.
(same as (9)b)
The ungrammatically of (9)c cannot be explained by the theory of passives stated

in (5): the external th-role and objective Case are both available for transitives, and
therefore the passivization of transitives with null prototypical objects should be
allowed, contrary to fact. Any account of (9)c should provide an explanation for the
3
These two alternative parameters have the same empirical consequences with respect to passive
intransitives, but not with respect to the (im)possibility of accusative NPs in impersonal passives.
4
I assume that even those intransitives that do not take cognate objects are virtual assigners of
objective Case.
crosslinguistic variation shown in (9)a-c, which clearly cannot be stated in terms of

a parameter concerning Case-assigning properties, since transitives are potential
assigners of objective Case.
The grammaticality judgments given for examples (4), (1) and (3) are strikingly
parallel to those indicated for (9)a-c.5 If this parallelism is not accidental, the
following empirical generalization can be formulated:
(10) Languages that (do not) admit passive intransitives also (do not) admit
passive transitives with null prototypical objects.
A unified analysis seems desirable. The investigation requires two preliminaries:
(a) a discussion of the distinction between transitives and intransitives; central to
this issue are a number of problems raised by null prototypical arguments; (b) a
revision of the theory of passives.
5. 1. 2. Null prototypical arguments: saturation in the Lexicon and syntactic
realization
In the three languages considered above, transitives are allowed to take null
prototypical objects in active sentences:
(11) a. Ich habe gegessen/gelesen.
I have eaten/ read.
b. J'ai mang6/lu.
c. Am mincat/citiL
The first question to be settled is the configuration underlying VPs with null
prototypical objects. One possibility is to assume that null prototypical objects are
instantiated in the syntax, under the form of a null pronominal category of the type
prcfi that would occupy the direct object position:
(11') b. J'ai mangS pro / lu pro.
However, there is no clear argument in favour of such a representation, whereas
counterarguments do exist:
(12)
a. Jean a fait manger des pinards Mane.

John made to eat spinach to Mary
'John made Mary eat spinach.'
b. Jean a fait t616phoner (*a) Mane.
John made telephone (*to) Mary
'John made Mary telephone.'
c. Jean a fait manger (*a) Mane.
5 i 5 .1.4.2. the marginal acceptability of (9)b and (2) will be discussed.

6The empty category in (11') cannot be PRO, because the direct object position is governed; it
cannot be NP-trace or wh-trace because no antecedent is present; as to the existence of object pro
in other constructions, see Rizzi (1986a).
John made to eat (*to) Mary

Example (12)c with a null prototypical object behaves on a par with intransitives
(see (12)b), and contrasts with (12)a, which presents an overt object: can be
inserted in front of the embedded subject in causatives only in the presence of a
direct object. The fact that the insertion of is ungrammatical in (12)c may be taken
to indicate that no direct object is visible in the syntax; in other words (11') must be
abandoned. Further evidence comes from the distribution of Benefactive Datives.
According to a well-known empirical generalization, Benefactives are
ungrammatical in sentences which lack direct objects:
(13)
a. II te vide une assiette trds vite quand il a faim.

he youoat empties a plate very quickly when he is hungry
b. *I1 te corns tres vite quand il le veut
he youDat runs very quickly when he wants to
c. *I1 te mange tres vite quand il a faim.
he youoat eats very quickly when he is hungry
The ungrammaticality of (13)c indicates that the null prototypical object of the verb
eat is not visible in the syntax. Compare cognate objects, which do behave as
visible direct objects with respect to both causatives and Benefactives.7 The data in
(12) and (13) very strongly suggest that null prototypical objects are not projected
in the syntax of French: the argument position corresponding to them is saturated in
the Lexicon.8
Êxamples (ii) and (iv), which present cognate objects contrast with (i) and (iii):
(i)
*Marie fait vivre Jean.
Marie makes live Jean
(ii)
Marie fait vivre des moments p6nibles Jean.
Marie makes live difficult moments Jean
'Mary makes John live difficult moments.'
(iii)
*Je ne veux pas qu'il me vive comme un bohimc.
I do not want that he mejya[ lives as an artist.
(iv)
Je ne veux pas qu'il me vive une vie de bohdme.
I do not want that he mej) a i lives an artist's life.
similar proposal can be found in Rizzi (1986)a, who examines constructions of the type
illustrated in (i)-(iii):
(i)
Cela conduit pro [PRO conclure que...]
(ii)
* This leads pro to [PRO conclude that...]
(iii)
This leads
us to [PRO conclude that...]
According to Rizzi the fact that a control relation is allowed in (i), as opposed to (ii), indicates
that an arbitrary object pro (which appears in the same position as us in (iii)) can be projected in
the syntax in French (and in Italian) but not in English. In the latter language arbitrary objects of
this type would be saturated in the Lexicon. Somewhat paradoxically, Rizzi's proposal both
supports and contradicts my own claim. It supports it insofar as it is assumed that certain
arguments need not be projected in the syntax, but can be saturated in the Lexicon. The problem
is that according to Rizzi this process does not apply in French: in this language arbitrary object
pro is projected in the syntax, and this contradicts my claim concerning null prototypical objects.
One possible solution would be to say that arbitrary pro is not necessarily projected in the syntax
(on a par with prototypical objects); it would only be projected when the syntactic context requires
it (e.g., the necessity of a controller in (i)).
It seems difficult to find comparable evidence for Romanian: this language does
not present the French type of causatives (and in particular no " (or Dative)
insertion"); on the other hand the constraint on the distribution of Benefactives is
not as strict:
(14)
Ip alearg ca un campion, numai s vrea.

[he] youoat runs like a champion, only if [he] wants to.
The absence of evidence in favour of the idea that transitives with null prototypical
objects behave syntactically on a par with intransitives does not mean that null
prototypical objects are projected in the syntax. Such a conclusion would be forced
if evidence could be produced in favour of the idea that transitives with null
prototypical objects behave like transitives with overt objects. In the absence of
such evidence, I will assume the null hypothesis, according to which null
prototypical objects are saturated in the Lexicon not only in French, but also in
Romanian (and in German).
This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the languages considered here
present no crosslinguistic difference concerning the distribution of null prototypical
objects in active constructions. This is true not only for examples such as (ll)a-c
(which show that French, Romanian and German all allow null prototypical
objects), but also for those cases in which null objects are not allowed:
(15)
a. * Ich habe bis spt in die Nacht getroffen/ beim A bschreiben berrascht.
I have till late in the night met/ caught in the act of cheating.
b. *J'ai rencontrS /surpris.
I have met/ caught in the act
c. *Am intilnit/ surprins.
The contrast between (ll)a-c and (15)a-c is easily explained: eat and drink allow
null objects, because verbs of this type assign a canonical, or prototypical
interpretation to their direct object ('something that can be eaten/ drunk'). This is not
the case of verbs like meet or surprise, catch in the act, which suppose an
individualized direct object (as noted in the grammatical tradition, the meaning of
these "absolute" transitives is incomplete in the absence of a direct object).9 The
crucial observation for the present discussion is that no crosslinguistic variation can
be observed for active transitives with null objects: depending on the semantics of
the verb, null objects are either allowed or they are forbidden in the three languages
examined here (see (11) and (15) respectively). It could be that a given French verb
does not have an exact counterpart in Romanian, e.g. the French verb accepts a null
object, whereas its closest Romanian translation does not. This would not be a
counterexample to the present claim that the distribution of null prototypical objects
in active constructions is not subject to syntactic crosslinguistic variation.
9
It comes as no surprise that the passivized forms of absolute transitives behave on a par with
their active counterparts:
(i)
*Es wurde getroffen/ berrascht.
(ii)
*I1 a 6te rencontr/surpris devant l'universit.
it was met/ caught in the act in front of the university
These examples are obviously grammatical if es/il are referential, but this interpretation is
irrelevant here.
The lack of crosslinguistic variation is expected if prototypical arguments are

saturated in the Lexicon. If an empty category were present in the syntax, it would
be subject to licensing conditions, which might or might not be satisfied, depending
on the properties of a given syntactic configuration. Since syntax is subject to
crosslinguistic variation, one might expect that the empty categories corresponding
to prototypical objects be licensed in certain languages but not in others. It is indeed
well-known that the presence of null subjects constitutes a syntactic parameter: it is
because of their specific syntactic properties that certain languages allow null
subjects (unlike null objects, null subjects cannot be saturated in the Lexicon: they
must be projected in the syntax as a consequence of the Extended Projection
Principle).
There exists another clear crosslinguistic variation concerning the distribution of
null pronominals: Portuguese presents null pronominal objects that may be
assigned definite interpretation (Raposo (1987); Rouveret (1987); Galves (1989);
for Chinese, see Huang (1984, 1989)):
(16) a. A Maria encontrou na feira ontem.
Mary met at the market yesterday
'Mary met her/him at the market yesterday.'
b. A Mana leu esse livro e Manuel leu tamb6m.
Mary read this book and Manuel read too
'Mary read this book and Manuel read it too.'
Romance languages other than Portuguese do not present this type of empty
pronominal object. It appears to be difficult to explain this clear crosslinguistic
variation at the level of the Lexicon. The explanation seems to be necessarily
syntactic: a specific property of Portuguese syntax (absent from the syntax of the
other Romance languages) allows an empty category in the direct object position to
be licensed and to be interpreted as definite.
These remarks indicate that unlike prototypical objects, definite objects cannot be
saturated in the Lexicon; they are necessarily projected in the syntax. One may
wonder why this is so. In other words, why can't we say, in English (or French,
Romanian, etc.), I saw or I read and mean saw him/her' and read it'. There is a
clear difference between this kind of direct object and the null prototypical objects
discussed above, namely their interpretation in terms of individuated reference. Let
me then state principle (17):
(17) An argument that is saturated in the Lexicon cannot be interpreted in terms of
individuated reference.
Null prototypical arguments, as well as arbitrary arguments (see Rizzi (1986a)), are
allowed to be saturated in the Lexicon, because they do not take individuated
reference:
(18)
Null prototypical and arbitrary arguments are not assigned individuated

reference.
This does not mean that null prototypical/arbitrary arguments are necessarily
saturated in the Lexicon; they may be projected in the syntax, provided that no
individuated reference is assigned to their syntactic realization. Starting with
Section 5.1.5., the main purpose of this chapter will be to examine cases of this
type.10
In sum, it has been shown that in active constructions null prototypical objects
are not realized in the syntax of French, and by the null hypothesis this analysis has
been extended to Romanian (and German). In other words, transitives with null
prototypical objects behave exactly as intransitives from the syntactic point of view.
Conversely, intransitives are frequently found with cognate objects, and in this case
they behave on a par with transitives. This means that subcategorization properties
do not allow us to distinguish between transitives and intransitives (both types of
verbs are allowed, but not obliged, to take a direct object).11 Only their selectional
requirements differ: transitives normally select individuated objects (certain
transitives are nonetheless compatible with nonindividuated or "prototypical"
objects), whereas intransitives select a cognate object, i.e., an NP whose lexical
features are identical to the lexical features of the verb itself.12 Because of their lack
of lexical specification, cognate objects normally remain implicit. In active
constructions they can be realized in the syntax only if they are modified by an
adjective: he used to live a peaceful life (cognate objects function semantically as
modifiers of the verb, but syntactically they behave as direct objects, as shown in
footnote 7).
The idea that intransitives and transitives cannot be distinguished on the basis of
their subcategorization properties seems to contradict a long-standing tradition in
both general linguistics and generative grammar. Despite its well-established
position, the notion of transitivity is far from clear. Thus, the term "transitive"
designates different empirical data from one author to the other: in an extremely rich
study of transitivity in French, Blinkenberg (1960) distinguishes intransitives from
"indirect transitives" (i.e., verbs that subcategorize indirect objects or PPs) and
"direct transitives" (i.e., verbs that subcategorize direct objects). In this taxonomy
the class of intransitives groups together "absolute" intransitives (i.e., verbs such as
telephone, which do not subcategorize) and unaccusatives. In more recent studies,
transitivity tends to cover both transitives and what we traditionally call
"intransitives", whereas the label "intransitivity" is attributed to the class of
unaccusatives (see Hopper and Thomson (1980), and Hoekstra (1984)). It thus
appears that, contrary to the current view, the dichotomy transitive vs. intransitive,
if at all relevant, does not distinguish between the verbs that subcategorize a direct
object and those that do not. It is important to note that the languages examined here
do not grammaticalize the transitivity distinction: no specific marker singles
intransitives out. Compare the case of unaccusatives (see Perlmutter (1978, 1989)
10
One case in point has been analyzed by Rizzi (1986a). In Section 5.1.5. I will discuss the
difference between the principle in (18) and Rizzi's rule of "Assign arb".
1
Unaccusatives should be kept apart: they impose a coindexation relation between the subject
and object positions.
12
This analysis of intransitives is similar to that of Hale and Keyser (1991), who propose that
intransitives rely on the incorporation of an NP into a null V. Under both proposals, a VP headed
by an intransitive presents an underlying direct object in its lexical representation; this object is
not necessarily projected in the syntax. This analysis is supported by the fact that in a number of
languages intransitives do not exist: the Japanese counterparts of English intransitives are formed
with a semantically-empty verb and a semantically full NP; in other languages intransitive verbs
are necessarily accompanied by overt expletive (dummy) objects.
Copula passives and middle/passive
se with (in)transitives
137
and Burzio (1981, 1986)), which in a number of languages are singled out by the
type of auxiliary (they take eire, and not avoir as a perfect auxiliary), as well as by a
specific distribution (occurrence in i/-impersonals in French, en/ne extraction in
French and Italian).
The parentheses I use in (in)transitives signal the idea that the supposedly
distinct classes of transitives and intransitives belong in fact together. The syntagm
passive (in)transitive designates on the one hand passive "intransitives", and on the
other hand passive transitives with null prototypical objects.
The conclusion of the foregoing discussion is that the notion of transitivity is
irrelevant when applied to lexical items (in other words no difference can be
established between run and eaion the basis of their subcategorization properties).
One may nonetheless use the term "transitive" when referring to syntactic
configurations: a sequence in which a direct object position is associated to the verb
may be said to be transitive, and one in which such an association does not hold
will be said to be intransitive. Thus, the sequence made up of an "intransitive" verb
and a cognate object is "transitive", whereas sequences with null prototypical
objects are "intransitive".
5. 1. 3. The passivization of (in)transitives and the relation between the lexical and
the syntactic components
Since lexical items cannot be said to be either transitive or intransitive, transitivity
cannot be stated as a condition on passivization.13 As will become clear below, this
does not mean that we abandon the idea that the object position is necessarily
visible in passive constructions. What must be given up is the idea that an object
position is visible in passives only if it is visible in the corresponding active
constructions. This line of inquiry can only be pursued under a particular
understanding of the Projection Principle (see Chomsky (1981: 29)):
(19) Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and D- and S-structure) are
projected from the Lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization
properties of lexical items.
This principle can in fact be understood and used in various ways, as stated
informally in (20):
(20) a. The Projection Principle is a kind of structure preservation condition
(syntactic structures cannot be modified in the course of derivation; in
13lt is well-known that transitivity is not a sufficient condition for passivization, but conversely
it is currently assumed that it is a necessary condition. However, as there is no clear test for
transitivity, we are doomed to circularity. Since at least in certain languages intransitives do
passivize, one must assume that they are transitives; intransitives would be "pure" intransitives in
the languages in which they cannot passivize. The type of parameter proposed by Jaeggli (1986a)
follows this line of reasoning: to say that German intransitives assign structural Case amounts to
assigning them a certain degree of transitivity. The circularity is clear: German intransitives are
quasi-transitives because they passivize, but no other clear test can be provided in favour of their
quasi-transitivity.
particular, syntactic positions cannot be added or suppressed in the course

of the derivation).
b. The Projection Principle requires an exhaustive mapping of lexical
structures into syntactic structures: all the various syntactic projections of
a given lexical item, which do not necessarily belong to the same
derivation, contain exactly the same number and type of arguments.
Since these two conditions are distinct from each other, it is possible to question
(20)b, while preserving (20)a. This line of inquiry has already been explored by
Rizzi (1986a), who has proposed that in certain constructions (see footnote 8)
arguments may be saturated in the Lexicon; correlatively they would not be
projected in the syntax. It has been shown above that this is a plausible assumption
for the prototypical objects of transitive verbs such as eat, drink, etc.
Let us now see how the difference between (20)a and (20)b bears on the
analysis of passives. Within a derivational framework, the empty category in (21) is
the trace of this cake, which was generated in the direct object position at Dstructure, and moved to the subject position in order to be assigned Case. Within a
representational framework, (21) can be directly base-generated; the presence of an
empty category in the object position is forced by the projection principle defined as
in (20)b (eat takes a Theme in its argument structure, which is obligatorily projected
as a direct object in the syntax):
(21)
This cake was eaten e.
The presence of an empty category in (21) cannot be imposed if the Projection

Principle is understood as in (20)a rather than in (20)b: by allowing certain
arguments to be saturated in the Lexicon, the projection principle cannot force the
presence of an empty category in (21).
Turning now to null prototypical objects, it has been suggested above that they
are not projected in the syntax of active constructions. Thus, given the absence of
an empty category in (22), nothing seems to impose one in (23):
(22)
On a mang et bu jusqu' minuit

one ate and drank till midnight
(23) II a 6t6 mangS et bu jusqu' minuit
it was eaten and drunk till midnight
However, in this case, we would expect "transitive" passives with null prototypical
objects to be legitimate in all languages (similar to what happens in active
constructions), and this is not the case. I repeat here examples (9)a-c:
(24) a. Es wurde bis spt in die Nacht gegessen / getrunken.
it was till late at night eaten/ drunk
'Eating/ drinking went on till late at night.'
b. 1 a 6t6 mang6/ bu ici r6cemment.
it was eaten/ drunk here recently
c. *A fost mincat/ but aici de cunnd.
(same as (24)b)
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)transitives
139
In order to account for the crosslinguistic variation shown by passive transitives

with null prototypical objects one must assume (25):
(25) In passive constructions the object position is necessarily visible in the
syntax.
Note that (25) is a constitutive part of the most common analysis of passives. My
attempt will be to show that nothing particular should be said about the passive
construction when it is used with transitives that take null prototypical objects or
with intransitives. This implies that null protoypical objects are necessarily
projected in the syntax of passive constructions, although they are not projected in
the corresponding active constructions.
We thus end up with an important dissymetry between passive and active
constructions, which conflicts with the most common understanding of the
Projection Principle stated in (20)b. This analysis is nonetheless compatible with
(20)a, because since the Aspects model passives and actives are not derivationally
related, and therefore no condition of structure preservation could ensure that the
two syntactic configurations be identical at a certain level of representation.
To summarize, the visibility of the direct object position in passive constructions
is not imposed by the lexical properties of the main verb but is due rather to the
defining properties of passive configurations, see (25). It is in fact possible to
maintain that the relevant property of passives is a lexical property of the verb BE
(see Milner (1986)) or of passive morphemes (in languages such as Greek or
Turkish). Grammatical moiphemes are of course "lexical" elements in the sense that
they are overt and that they can be associated with a certain grammatical meaning14
or even with an "argument structure" in the sense of Grimshaw (1990). It is
therefore the argument structure of the copula or that of passive morphemes, rather
than the lexical properties of the main verb, which forces the direct object to be
realized in the syntax of passives. According to this analysis, syntactic structures
are not mere projections of the Lexicon; they are instead partially autonomous with
respect to the Lexicon (if we understand the Lexicon to be the list of lexical, as
opposed to grammatical or functional, elements). The Lexicon does act as a filter:
thus, the presence of an empty category must be allowed by the Lexicon, i.e., it
must be compatible with the lexical properties of the main verb. The proposed
analysis of passive transitives with null objects satisfies this filtering condition:
(in)transitives are compatible with the presence of direct objects, and therefore
direct objects may appear in passives even if they do not appear in the
corresponding active configurations.
If we now move from transitives with null prototypical objects to intransitives,
we arrive at the conclusion that due to (25), passive intransitives should also
present a visible empty category in the object position. It has already been proposed
above that the lexical structure of intransitives presents a null cognate object. Just
Win GB theory the passive morpheme is currently assumed to be defined by intrinsic features
(Marantz (1984) proposes [-logical subject], [-transitive]; Belletti (1982) suggests [-Agent],
[+objective Case], which has become widely accepted). Note that Chomsky's own position in
LGB is not clearly defined. The present discussion is quite independent of the issue regarding the
primitive versus the derived properties of BE and passive morphemes: the intrinsic features of the
type just mentioned correlate with a necessary coindexation relation of the subject and object
positions.
like the null prototypical object of intransitives, the null cognate object of
intransitives is not necessarily projected in the syntax, although it may be so
whenever its presence is required, as in the case of passives.
To summarize, I assume: (a) that null prototypical/cognate objects are projected
in the syntax of passives, although they are not in the corresponding active
structures; (b) the presence of the empty category imposed by passives is
compatible with the lexical structure of intransitives. The hypothesis that the object
position is visible in passive intransitives has important advantages: (a) a unitary
analysis of passives is preserved (compare Marantz (1984) and Baker (1988) who
stipulate that the passive [morpheme] should be defined in two distinct ways for
transitives and intransitives); (b) it allows us to capture the parallelism between the
passivization of transitives with prototypical objects and the passivization of
intransitives. Finally, this hypothesis opens the way to a possible explanation of the
well-known but little-understood crosslinguistic differences. If we were to assume
that null prototypical/cognate objects were saturated in the Lexicon we would
expect no crosslinguistic variation. If instead they are projected in the syntax, they
are predicted to be legitimate or illegitimate, depending on the satisfaction of
licensing conditions, which in turn depend on the syntactic properties of a given
language. In line with current research (see Rizzi (1986)a), I assume that Case is
the formal licenser for pronominal empty categories; this hypothesis might pose a
problem given the traditional idea that intransitives do not assign Case, but it has
already been shown that this assumption is incorrect (as indicated by the existence
of overt cognate objects). Besides formal licensing, null objects (be they arbitrary,
prototypical or cognate) are also subject to content licensing. In the sections that
follow, it will be shown that the possibility of passive (in)transitives depends on
the satisfaction of both these two licensing requirements.
5. 1. 4. French impersonals and passive (in)transitives
The syntax of passive intransitives is related to the syntax of impersonal
constructions, which show important crosslinguistic differences; these may derive
from other differences, but for the purposes of the present discussion it will suffice
to begin with the (non-primitive) crosslinguistic differences between impersonals.
According to Pollock's (1981, 1986) analysis of French il impersonals, the
postverbal NP is not coindexed with il. In other words, examples (26) rely on chain
configurations of the type in (27), with two distinct chains. Note that (27)
corresponds to il impersonals in general (see (26)a), and to passive impersonals
(see (26)b) in particular:
(26)
a. II est arrive un grand nombre d'6tudiants.

it has arrived a great number of students
great number of students arrived.'
b. II a 6t6 condamnd beaucoup d'innocents.
it was condemned many innocents
'Many innocents were condemned.'
(27)
141
(il) (NP) 15
It has been proposed by Reuland (1985) and Chomsky (1986)a that expletives
cannot survive at LF (because of the "Full Interpretation" principle); in ilimpersonals this forces the movement of the postverbal NP towards the position
occupied by il.
5. 1.4. 1. Formal licensing of object pro in French impersonal passives
By the null hypothesis, passive (in)transitives rely on essentially the same
representation as passive impersonals in general. The only peculiarity of (28)a-c is
the fact that the object position is occupied by an empty element (compare (26)b,
which presents an overt NP in the same position):
(28)
a. ? ? / / a ete mang6/ bu pro id
rcemment.
it was eaten/ drunk pro here recently

b. 1 a 6t6 beaucoup
trich6pro
hier
sot.
it was much cheated pro here last night

c. II a 6t6 abouti pro un compromis
acceptable.
it was arrived at an acceptable compromise

Example (28)a illustrates the passivization of transitives with null prototypical
objects. (28)b and (28)c are examples of passive intransitives, where the pro in the
object position can be viewed as a null cognate object; (28)c differs from (28)b by
the fact that the intransitive subcategorizes a PP (for more examples see (1) and
(2))
The chain configurations underlying examples (28) are of the type shown in
(29), which differs from (27) only by the fact that the second chain contains a null
pronoun instead of a lexical NP:
(29)
(il) (pro)
As discussed above, the presence of an empty category in the object position is not
due to the lexical properties of the main verb, but rather to the defining properties of
passives (see (25)). Note that the presence of an empty category in the object
position is independently forced by Reuland's and Chomsky's above-mentioned
principle of Full Interpretation: for the expletive il to be deleted we need another
element susceptible to move to the position occupied by il.
In (28) and (29) I have indicated the empty category that occupies the object
position by pro. This is indeed the only possibility: variables and NP-traces are
necessarily bound (by elements in A- and A'-positions, respectively), and there is
no such binder in (28); we cannot assume PRO either, since the object position is
governed by the verb.
15
The chain configuration in (27) relies on the idea that il is not a syntactic clitic, but stays under
[,]; if we assumed that French subject pronouns are syntactic clitics, we would have to
assume a chain configuration of the type (e, il, AGR) (NP), where e is under (,) and il is a
clitic adjoined to Infi. The difference between the two possibilities is irrelevant here.
Let us now consider the licensing conditions to which pro is subject (see
Chomsky (1982) and Rizzi (1982, 1986a)): pro must be formally licensed by Case
features 16 and the content of pro must be licensed by its antecedent. The question
concerning the Case of pro in passive (in)transitives reduces to the more general
question concerning the assignment of Case in French impersonal passives. Since
Case is assigned unproblematically to the direct object position in French
impersonal passives (see Appendix 1), it is natural to assume that pro is formally
licensed in (28).
5. 1.4. 2. Content licensing of object pro
Let us now turn to the differences in acceptability that can be observed in (28).
Since pro is formally licensed, the marginal acceptability of (28)a-b can be due only
to the licensing conditions on the content of pro (no antecedent of pro is present in
(28)a-b). Note that this example becomes completely ungrammatical if we suppress
the adjunct, which indicates that adjuncts may function as content licensers of the
null object.17
What does it mean to say that adjunct modifiers are content licensers for the
object position? It is clear that what is at stake is not a relation of the type found in
standard binding, where two categories are assumed to bear the same index (see the
relation between a trace and its antecedent, or any other kind of anaphoric relation).
On the other hand, it is also clear that some kind of relation holds between verb
modifiers and the object position. Evidence in favour of this idea is related to
examples that are ungrammatical due to an incompatibility between objects and
adverbs. The ungrammaticality of (30)a might be due to a constraint imposed by
beaucoup 'much': this adverb seems to require that the th-position associated with
the predicate boire be non-individuated; this constraint is not met in (30)a, where
the object is a specific NP. Note that by itself, beaucoup is not incompatible with a
specific NP (see (30)b). It thus appears that a complex relation holds between
verbs, adverbs and direct objects:
(30)
a. *Jean a beaucoup bu une bouteille de vin/cette bouteille de vin/ce vin.

John has much drunk a bottle of wine/ this bottle of wine/ this wine
'John drank much a bottle ...'
b. Jean a beaucoup appr6ci6 ce vin/cette bouteille de vin.
John has much appreciated this wine/ this bottle of wine
'John very much appreciated this wine/this bottle of wine.'
16
The technical details of the mechanisms which contribute to the formal licensing of pro are not
specified in Chomsky (1982). In particular it is not clear whether Nominative Case is assigned to
pro or born by AGR: "In a pro-drop language, pro with Case can be left in subject position
governed by AGR, since its content will be determined by AGR with Case, i.e. the pro INFL"
(Chomsky 1982: 86). The Case requirement on object pro has been proposed for independent data
by Rizzi (1986a).
17
Within a different theoretical framework, N. Riviere (1979) considers that the presence of this
complement satisfies the transitivity requirement characteristic of passives. My own analysis,
which postulates an empty category in the object position, supposes a stronger version of the
transitivity requirement. This approach has the advantage to capture the crosslinguistic variation of
passives without parametrizing transitivity in various languages.
Adverbial modification has been treated by Davidson (1966) in terms of

conjunction: to walk rapidly involves an event (walking) and an adverbial
predication on this event (the walk is rapid). Higginbotham (1985) has adapted this
analysis to adjective modification. Under Higginbotham's formulation, in an NP
such as a big butterfly, both the adjective and die noun are predicates that present an
open th-position. Since the whole N1 has only one th-position (which is th-bound
by the determiner), probably carried over from the head noun, the open position in
the adjective must be discharged in some other way. Higginbotham has proposed a
mechanism of th-identification between the open th-positions of the noun and of the
adjective. This relation of th-identification can be intuitively paraphrased as "the
thing that is a butterfly is the thing that is big".
Applying Higginbotham's notion of "th-identification" to adverbial modification
(this extension has been suggested to me by T. Hoekstra, oral communication), we
may assume that there is th-identification between the open th-position of the event
denoted by the verb and the open th-position of the predication denotated by the
adverb: the relation of th-identification that holds in walk rapidly could be
paraphrased as "the event denotated by the verb walk is an event that is rapid".
It would be rather speculative to try to really locate "referential places" for events
(see Higginbotham (1985: 563)), but quite clearly the object position is part of the
event referred to by the VP, and therefore we may assume that in a given
configuration, th-identification holds between the object position and the adverb.
Th-identification can only apply if the two open th-positions are compatible with
each other; in case they are not, th-identification is violated and the example is ruled
out (see (30)a).
Coming back to empty objects, we may assume that the relation of thidentification holds in this case also, and that it acts as a licensing mechanism for
the content of the empty category: an adjunct th-identifies, and thereby licenses, the
open th-position inside the VP. In the absence of modifiers, examples such as (31)a
are ungrammatical, because their content is not th-identified; compare (31)b:
(31) a. *I1 a 6te bu.
it was drunk
b. Ill a 6t6 beaucoup bu hier soir.
it was much drunk here last night
D. Godard observes (p.c.) that beaucoup is a quite powerful licenser, compared to
other adjuncts:
(32) 1*11 a 6te bu pendant la runion hier soir.
it was drunk during the meeting last night
The account in terms of th-identification provides an understanding for the
difference between (32) and (31)b: as shown in (30), beaucoup is an adverb which
imposes restrictions on the type of object with which it may combine. These
restrictions may be viewed as features imposed by the adverb to the object of the
verb. If this object is an empty pronoun, the features imposed by beaucoup will
function as a mechanism of content licensing. Compare locative and temporal
adjuncts (see (32)), which do not seem to impose restrictions on the object (they are
compatible with a much wider range of direct objects), and therefore function as
weak licensers of objects, insofar as they simply supply them with a spaciotemporal background.
Let us now ask why example (33) is correct, with no adverb:
(33) Jean a bu.
John has drunk
A straightforward answer can be given: it has been assumed above that in active
constructions prototypical objects are not instantiated in the syntax, and therefore
no th-identifier is needed. The necessity of th-identification is thus related to the
syntactic instantiation of the object position (which calls for content licensing),
which characterizes passives, as opposed to active constructions.
Note that the type of French examples illustrated in (28)c (see also (1)) are fully
grammatical for most speakers, whereas (28)a-b (see also (2)) are highly marginal.
The difference between the two types is obvious: the verb in (28)c subcategorizes
for a PP complement; a subcategorized PP appears to function as a better thidentifier for object pro than an adjunct, which is not surprising.
To conclude this section, let us consider certain interpretive differences between
passive intransitives and active structures with arbitrary subjects such as on 'one':
(34)
a. II a 6t6 abouti pro un compromis acceptable (par les deux parties

concern6es).
it was arrived pro at an acceptable compromise (by the two concerned
parties)
b. On a abouti un compromis acceptable (*par les deux parties
concernSes).
one has arrived pro at an acceptable compromise (*by the two concerned
parties)
Passive intransitives allow an overt Agent PP, unlike on 'one' constructions. This is
expected under the proposed analysis of passive intransitives: the Agent th-role is
not projected onto the (,) position, and therefore it may be realized as a PP
complement (compare one constructions: one is assigned the Agent th-role, and
therefore no Agent PP can appear). 18 This clear structural difference between
passive intransitives and on constructions correlates with a subtle difference in
interpretation: in passive intransitives a particular state of things is described as
taking place, and some (specified or unspecified) individual is involved in that
activity; in on 'one' constructions, on the other hand, a particular activity or state of
things is viewed as being initiated by an indeterminate Agent/ Cause.19 If we want
to capture this difference, passive intransitives should be assigned glosses such as
18
Note that according to my analysis of middle/passive se (see Section 5.2.) the Agent th-role is
neither realized in the (,) position, nor "absorbed" by se. This should allow the presence of
an Agent PP, a possibility which is attested, but only marginally (compare the utter impossibility
of Agent PPs in on 'one' constructions). The marginality (indeed the impossibility) of Agent PPs
with middle/passive se is still in need of an explanation, but I believe that this phenomenon is
not due to the fact that the Agent th-role would be present in the verbal morphology or under
(,).
Kratzer (1991) gives interesting examples that show that German man 'one' constructions and
passive intransitives are not interchangeable in certain contexts.
"there is dancing/ eating/ talking... going on" or "there is being danced/ eaten/ talked
..", which are characterized by the presence of NPs that represent the
nominalization of the intransitive verb. This interpretation of passive intransitives is
related to the structure assumed here, and more precisely to the fact that the object
position is necessarily visible: the postulated empty category takes over the lexical
specifications of the verb, and leaves the latter minimally specified. The
passivization of intransitives thus appears to trigger an operation which is exactly
the opposite of the process of "thematic incorporation" that can be assumed for
intransitives (see Gruber (1976) for the incorporation that characterizes motion
verbs): a verb such as mentir can be viewed as having been obtained by the
incorporation of the noun mensonge into the verb dire (for other examples see Hale
and Keyser (1991)); the passive il m'a 6t6 menti pro sans vergogne brings
mensonge back to life at LF (the interpretation is "il m'a 6te dit des mensonges"),
due to the presence of pro.
5. 1. 5. An indexing condition on the chains underlying null prototypical arguments
So far a theory of passive (in)transitives has been proposed, which has been
illustrated by an analysis of the French data. In this section, an explanation will be
proposed for the ungrammaticality of passive (in)transitives in Romanian.
5. 1. 5. 1. Subject inversion and passive (in)transitives in Romanian
Like the other pro-drop Romance languages, Romanian does not present the type of
impersonal structures characteristic of French. Examples (35)-(36) are not
"impersonals" strictly speaking, but rather instances of an inversion phenomenon,
which allows NP subjects to occur in the postverbal position. Depending on the
type of verb, the postverbal subject may occupy either a postverbal subject position,
or the object position (with unaccusatives and passives):
(35)
A u telefonat m ulp studenp.

have telephoned many students
(36) a. Au venit mulp studenp.
have come many students
b. Au fost date la iveal multe ma$inapi.
have been put to light many machinations
c. Furono arrestati molti studenti.
were arrested many students
The exact position of the postverbal subject in (35) is not directly relevant here.
One may choose between Rizzi's (1982) proposal and that suggested in DobrovieSorin (1987) and in chapters 1-4 above. Using the chain formalism, the two
options are as shown in (35')a-b:
(35') a. (pro, NP)
(e, AGR, NP)
b. (NP)
(AGR, NP)
The difference between the two chains in (35')a comes from a different notation of
null subjects: pro is in fact an abbreviation of (e, AGR), where AGR represents the
fi-features realized on the verb, which identify the empty category under [,]).
(35')a illustrates Rizzi's hypothesis that postverbal subjects coexist with a null
subject under the [NP, IP] position. According to the alternative given in (35')b, no
preverbal subject coexists with postverbal subjects; whether we assume or not that
AGR is part of the chain is irrelevant to our analysis.
The structure underlying the free inversion of the subject with unaccusatives and
passives (see (36)a-c) differs from the simple inversion cases in (35), insofar as the
postverbal subject occupies (or at least may occupy) the object position (see Burzio
(1981,1986)). 20 The subject position is occupied by an empty category, pro. Given
the existence of competing analyses concerning the position of null subjects, we
have at least two options for the underlying structure of (36)a-c:
(36') a. (pro, NP)
(e, AGR, NP)
IP
I (AGR) VPN
V
NP
b. (AGR, e,NP)
IP
I
I'
I (AGR) VPN
NP
V\
NP
I
NP
20This hypothesis explains why ne cliticization is possible from this position, as shown in (i), as
opposed to the postverbal position of intransitive verbs (see (ii)):
(i)
Nej furono arrestati molti ej.
of them were arrested many
(ii)
*Ne telefonano molti.
of them telephone many
This kind of evidence cannot be used for Romanian, which lacks a counterpart of ne. The minimal
hypothesis is that the Romanian example in (35) has the same underlying structure as Italian
(36)a, in which the direct object position is involved, just like in French impersonal passives.
(36')a is based on Rizzi's (1982) analysis, according to which pro/ e occupies the
[,] position. According to an alternative analysis (see Dobrovie-Sorin
(1987)), null subjects occupy the postverbal position; more precisely they occupy
the VP-internal subject position characteristic of overt postverbal subjects; hence
(36')b should be assumed, where the null subject occupies (Spec, VP). Note that
even if there is strong evidence in favour of the idea that in Italian, postverbal
lexical subjects do not occupy a VP-internal position, it is not clear that null
subjects behave on a par with overt subjects. In other words, (36')b may be
postulated even for Italian; one advantage is that in (36')b the relation between
AGR and the empty category that it identifies obeys strict C-command (i.e., Ccommand defined in terms of branching nodes).
Beyond their differences, (36')a and (36')b are alike insofar as they contain only
one th-chain, which bears the th-role assigned to the direct object position occupied
by NP; Nominative case is shared by the members of the chain (alternatively, we
may say that Nominative case is transferred from AGR [or pro] to NP, as proposed
by Rizzi (1982)). This is unlike French il impersonals, which rely on two distinct
chains.
Note now that chains such as (36')a or (36')b violate principle C of binding
theory: the NP in object position is illicitly bound by the null subject; this violation
is independent of the exact location of the null subject (either [Spec, IP] or [Spec,
VP]), because in any case the null subject C-commands the NP in the object
position.21
To solve this problem, let us assume that the chain underlying passives and
unaccusatives is neither (36')a nor (36')b but rather (37), where the overt NP
occupies either the [Spec, IP] or the [Spec, VP] position, and the empty category
stands in the direct object position:22
21
A possible solution to this problem is to assume that principle C does not apply to elements
belonging to the same chain: principle C is currently assumed to be relevant for "referential
expressions", and it is natural to assume that the notion of "reference" is relevant only at the level
of th-chains and that it cannot concern members of chains. This proposal is unacceptable, because
principle C can be shown to be relevant inside chains (see 5.1.6.4.). Principle C should therefore
be stated as a configurational principle (that governs the distribution of non-anaphoric lexical NPs)
rather than as a condition on referential expressions. But in this case (36')a-b would violate
principle C.
22
This suggestion itself raises two kinds of difficulties. The first concerns the idea that at Sstructure postverbal subjects occupy the [Spec, VP] position. While this hypothesis is quite
plausible for Romanian (see chapters 1-4 here, and Dobrovie-Sorin (1987), Motapanyane (1989))
and Spanish, it is much more problematic for Italian, which does not allow the order V-S-O. Note
however that the impossibility of this word order may be due to a locality condition on the
assignment of Objective Case, which would be blocked by an intervening subject (for this
suggestion see Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)). In those configurations in which Objective Case is not
assigned, in particular in passives (see also active constructions with intransitives and
unaccusatives), nothing would block a structure where the subject NP is under [Spec, VP] and the
NP-trace under [NP, VP]. The second problem bears on the well-known asymmetries between
postverbal subjects in general and postverbal subjects of passives and of inaccusatives: according
to Burzio (1981, 1986) ne extraction is allowed from the [NP,V'] position, but not from a
postverbal subject position. An alternative account seems possible, however: we could try to show
that ne-extraction is sensitive to the derivational history of the subject chain. In this case, ne
extraction would be allowed from an NP that has moved from the object position to a postverbal
subject position, but it could not apply out of an NP that has been base-generated in the
(37)
(NP, e)
Let us now return to Romanian passive (in)transitives:

(38)
a. *A fostpro but mult e aid.

[it] was pro drunk much e here
b. *A fost pro dansat/cintat e ieri.
[it] was pro danced/ sung e yesterday
c. *Va fi pro vorbit e de dumneavoastr sptmina viitoare.
[it] will be pro spoken e about you next week
According to my hypothesis concerning the structural properties of passives, the

subject and object positions are both visible in passives. As notated in (38), the
VP-internal subject position is occupied by a null pronominal (identified by AGR).
As to the empty category in the object position, it can be an NP-trace: it is Ccommanded by an element which occupies an -position (the pro in subject
position) which belongs to the same -chain. This amounts to assuming chains of
the type in (39), which corresponds to (37):
(39)
(pro, e)
For the sake of exhaustiveness, let us consider the alternative hypothesis, according
to which the relevant chain underlying (38) would be of the form given in (36')a,
with pro in the object position; hence (pro, pro). In this chain each instance of pro
must be licensed by Case, and the only possibility is for them to share nominative
Case, probably assigned by AGR (note that Case sharing, or Case transmission,
applies in (36')a between pro and the postverbal subject NP). Rizzi (1986a) has
proposed that the Case provided through chain formation (which would suffice for
the Case filter) is "inconsequential for the licensing of pro", whose licensing is
strictly local and involves a direct relation with a governing (and Case-marking)
head. Under this proposal, chains of the type (pro, pro) are ruled out. It thus
appears that, due to the licensing conditions on empty categories, Romanian (see
also Italian) passives with null prototypical objects must be analyzed as relying on
chains of the type in (39).
postverbal subject position. This type of analysis has already been proposed for Genitive en in
French: Couquaux (1979) has accounted for the extraction of Genitive en from the preverbal
subject position in predicative constructions by assuming that the subject of the verb be is
generated as the subject of a small clause embedded under the verb be. I leave the technical
implementation of this suggestion open for further research. Note that the extraction of Genitive
en and that of quantitative en may well be similar insofar as they are both sensitive to whether the
chain underlying the subject contains the object position. However, the two rules differ insofar as
the extraction of quantitative en is more restricted: it can only apply if the S-structure position of
the subject is postverbal.
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)tmnsitives 149
5. 1. 5. 2. An interpretive constraint on impersonal passives

Let us now try to account for the ungrammatically of (38). To do so, we must
show that (39) is ill-formed. However, (39) is legitimate, because in a null subject
language pro is allowed to take nominative Case in passive constructions (this is
the only formal requirement on chains of this type: the empty category presumably an NP-trace - in object position is properly governed by the passive
verb, similar to what happens in passives with overt NPs). And indeed, if we delete
mult 'much', (38)a is not ungrammatical, but its null subject is necessarily
interpreted as having definite reference: "it was eaten" (where it stands for the
lamb, the meat, etc.). See also (38)b-c, which would mean "it [a given dance] was
danced"/ "it [a given song] was sung". In case this interpretation is not available
(there is no discourse antecedent for the null subject), or if we add mult 'much'
(which is at odds with the definite interpretation of the direct object, see the
discussion of (30)a) these examples are ruled out. Compare impersonal passives in
French or German: ??i7 a beaucoup bu ici 'it was much drunk here' is marginal,
but it cannot be interpreted in terms of individuated reference; see also gestern
wurde zu viel gegessen 'yesterday was too much eaten'. It thus appears that an
explanation of the possibility versus the impossibility of passive transitives with
null prototypical objects concerns the type of referential properties that can be
assigned to a given syntactic configuration: in Romanian passives, the externalized
object is necessarily assigned individuated reference. This is incompatible with null
prototypical objects, which by definition (see (18)) cannot be assigned individuated
reference; the lack of individuated reference also characterizes cognate objects,
which I add to the list in (18):
(40) Null prototypical/cognate objects and arbitrary arguments are not assigned
individuated reference.
Coming back to Romanian, our problem now reduces to (41):
(41) Why is the externalized object of Romanian passives necessarily associated
with individuated reference?
5. 1.5. 3. Indexing conventions and referential properties
Indexing is a formal device that captures referential properties. Indexing is
frequently used simply as a notational device: we would have a method of
determining whether an NP is referential or not, and we would then assign indices
to those NPs that have been recognized as referential. The relation between
indexing and reference becomes more interesting if we keep the two notions
distinct: the assignment of indices must be independent of reference. Referential
properties should not be directly introduced into the syntactic representation, but
rather "read off', or be a consequence of syntactic configurations. Given this view,
any theory of the referential properties of syntactic structures requires two types of
principles: (a) principles that govern the assignment of indices (these principles
should be stated with no regard to referential properties); (b) interpretive principles
that establish a relation between a given configuration of indices and referential
properties. I believe that in a theory that uses the notion of chain, referential
properties can only be relevant at the level of the chain. I shall therefore restrict my
attention to chains:
(42)
a. Indices are assigned freely to one-member chains.

b. Indices are assigned obligatorily to -chains that contain more than one
member.
c. An indexed chain is assigned individuated reference.
Conventions (42)a-b can be viewed as visibility conditions on chains: in the

absence of indices, a chain that contains two or more elements cannot be visible as
a chain (in other words, there is nothing to indicate that the relevant elements form a
chain); one-member chains need no indexing. Let me stress again that conventions
(42)a-b apply with no reference to the interpretive properties of NPs: the formal
indices assigned by (42)a-b are assigned in the absence of any information
concerning reference. The relation between configurations of formal indices and
referential properties is established through convention (42)c.
By keeping the assignment of indices distinct from referential properties, we
may imagine contexts in which the assignment of indices is forced by the syntax
(e.g., by virtue of (42)b), but disallowed by the type of referential properties that
inherently characterize certain elements. Thus, the negative counterpart of (42)c can
be viewed as a condition on those arguments which by definition cannot be
assigned individuated reference:
(43) The chain underlying referentially non-individuated elements cannot be
indexed.
As stated in (40), empty prototypical/cognate objects, as well as arbitrary
arguments, cannot be assigned individuated reference, and therefore they fall under
the condition in (43).
In what follows, it will be shown that the crosslinguistic differences concerning
(in)transitive passives are a consequence of (43): in certain languages passives
force indexing, and this is disallowed by virtue of (43). This kind of account relies
crucially on the idea that the assignment of indices depends exclusively on the
syntactic properties of a given configuration (see (42)a-b), completely disregarding
the referential properties of the NPs involved in that configuration. If indices are
viewed as a mere notational device for referential properties, no indexing condition
of the type in (43) can be imagined, because the assignment of indices and
individuated reference necessarily coincide.
We may now come back to examples (38). They rely on the type of chain shown
in (39), which, because it presents two elements, is necessarily indexed, due to
(42)b. Example (38)c is ruled out because the syntactic representation underlying
null cognate objects cannot be indexed. The same indexing constraint rules out the
interpretation in terms of null prototypical/cognate objects for (38)a-b. Due to the
presence of mult, example (38)a cannot be interpreted in terms of individuated
reference either, hence its ungrammaticality; (38)b is correct only under the
referential interpretation discussed above, which relies on an indexed chain.
Compare French impersonal passives, which are legitimate because French
impersonals rely on chain configurations which present two distinct chains, (il) and
(pro), where pro occupies the object position. No violation of the indexing
constraint arises in this case, because pro is the only member of its chain, and thus
falls under (42)a; the procedure of free assignment of indices allows nonindexing.
But one may ask why the indexing constraint does not rule out the LF
representations of French passive intransitives. The question arises if we assume
that at LF the null prototypical object moves towards the (Spec, IP) position, thus
deleting il, as required by Chomsky's (1986a) Full Interpretation Principle. This
movement would give rise to a two-member chain, which would necessarily be
indexed, in violation of (43). To solve this problem, we must assume that it is not
the object, but some other element, e.g. a PP or an adverb, that replaces il at LF.
The same conclusion will be reached in Section 5.2.3.
In sum, the proposed explanation of the ungrammaticality of (in)transitive
passives in Romanian involves the following steps: (a) an empirical observation: a
chain of the type (pro, e) is necessarily interpreted in terms of individuated
reference; (b) an explanation of this observation, which relies on conventions
(42)b-c; (c) a condition (see (43)) on the syntactic representation of null
prototypical/cognate objects; more generally, this condition also applies to other
referentially non-individuated arguments.
In subsequent sections, further evidence will be provided in favour of (43). For
the moment, let us concentrate on the observation stated in (a) and the proposed
explanation for it. A similar observation has been made by Rizzi (1986)a: example
(45) cannot be interpreted as the passive counterpart of (44): the null derived
subject cannot be arbitrary; it can only be interpreted as referring to a specific set of
people:
(44)
Gianni fotografa pro nudi.

Gianni photographs pro nude
(45) pro Vengono fotografati e nudi.
[they] are photographed - nude
Turning now to the explanation itself, let us first examine why A'-chains have been
left out of the reach of (42)b. A standard example of A'-chain is provided by clitic
chains (the A'-chains underlying wh-movement and QR are irrelevant here), to
which can be added the chain (AGR, e), underlying null subjects (on the
parallelism between clitics and AGR see Rizzi (1982) and Chomsky (1982)). It is
generally the case that clitics and null subjects are assigned individuated reference,
and therefore (42)b seems to apply not only to -chains, but also to A'-chains.
Note that the idea that (42)b could apply to A'-chains is a restatement (and an
extension) of Rizzi's (1986)a hypothesis, according to which the definite
interpretation characteristic of (45) would be due to the fact that the null subject is
licensed by Infi (or rather AGR). 23 Stated in this way, this proposal is too limited
in scope, or simply ad-hoc: it captures the observed phenomenon, but does not try
to establish a more general property that would cover the observed phenomenon,
but not only that phenomenon. My account in terms of the indexing properties of
-chains has the advantage to deal correctly not only with (in)transitives passives,
but also with the passivization of arbitrary pronouns, of idiomatic expressions, of
verbs that take sentential arguments, etc. (see Section 5.1.6.). Within this
23
Within my theory of reference, which assumes that the notion of reference is only relevant at the
level'of the chain, Rizzi's idea could be reformulated by saying that a chain that presents an AGR
element is necessarily assigned indices, and therefore counts as referentially individuated.
framework, Rizzi's suggestion could constitute a particular case, if the proposition

in (42)b is extended to A'-chains.
However, there exist clear counterexamples to this proposal. In pro-drop
languages, weather predicates appear with null subjects identified by AGR features,
and in this case the null subject is not assigned the definite interpretation:
(46) Plou.
[it] rains
Likewise, we may find clitic pronouns inside idiomatic expressions, and we do not
want to say that in this case the clitics assume a definite pronoun interpretation :
(47)
a. II se la coule douce
he himselfoat it flows sweet
'He takes it easy.'
b. Vous l'emporterez facilement
you it will take away easily
'You will get away with it easily.'
In order to handle these data, I have restricted (42)b to -chains. In Appendix 1, a

conceptual reason for this restriction will be provided, which takes into account
fundamental differences between -chains and A'-chains, which correlate with
their distinct indexing properties.
Finally, let us note that the theory proposed here differs from Rizzi's with
respect to the assignment of the arbitrary/non-individuated reference. My account
relies on a relation between the assignment of indices (which is independent of
reference) and the assignment of reference: an indexed chain is necessarily
assigned individuated reference, and conversely, a non-indexed chain is not
assigned individuated reference. According to this theory, there is no rule of feature
assignment comparable to "Assign arb" in Rizzi's (1986a) account. I believe that
both the arbitrary and the prototypical meanings are default interpretations, which
arise whenever a chain is not assigned individuated reference (because it bears no
index). The difference between prototypical and arbitrary is probably related to the
absence versus presence of the feature [+human].
5. 1.5. 4. Two types of indices
Let us now consider a problem that arises if we try to extend the present theory to
Rizzi's arbitrary pro. As noted by Rizzi (1986a : 512), different arbitrary PROs (or
pro's) may be understood, in different configurations, either as obligatorily
coreferential, as free in reference, or as disjoint.24 According to Rizzi, these various
types of relations can be captured by means of indexing if we allow arbitrary NPs
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(i), (ii) and (iii) respectively, borrowed from Rizzi (see his (24)c, (24)d and (26)b):
It is difficult [PROarb' to hope [PROarb' to win the race]].
It is difficult [PROarb' to hope [that PROarb" winning the race] will be easy]
In questo dipartimento, [PROarb' costringere___arb" a [PRO lavorare]] e difficile.
in this department, [PRO to force
[PRO to work]] is difficult
Copula passives and middle/passive sc with (in)transitives 153
to be assigned "the usual types of referential indices". Rizzi concludes that the "arb"
subscript that he uses in order to signal the arbitrary interpretation of object pro or
of PRO should not be viewed as an index, but rather as simply indicating a
collection of features (+human, +generic, +/-plural...) that enter into the
composition of the arbitrary interpretation. This is clearly an undesirable
assumption for a constrained theory of reference, because we end up with two
technical means to assign reference: referential indices on the one hand, and a rule
that assigns "arb", which appears to be disconnected from the indexing procedure,
on the other.
My own proposal seems to fare somewhat better, insofar as I assume a relation
between the absence of indices and the arbitrary interpretation. However, I also
need two types of indices, which can be descriptively labelled "chain-internal" and
"chain-external". The former would be associated with referential properties,
whereas the latter would not count for the assignment of reference, but only for the
computation of coreference or anaphoric relations that hold between chains,
independently of whether the relevant chains present internal indices. For a further
discussion, see Appendix 1.
Conclusions
To conclude, let me briefly compare the present approach to the current account of
passives in terms of Case absorption (see Chomsky (1981); Jaeggli (1986a)),
which to a certain extent is also a condition on the visibility of the object position.
The difference between the two approaches concerns the way in which this
visibility requirement (or Case-assigning properties) is stated in the grammar.
Inherent to the current approach is the idea that transitivity is a feature of a given
class of verbs. The clear counterexample of passive intransitives is handled by the
assumption that in certain languages intransitives would present peculiar Case
properties (they would, in fact, function as transitives), compared to standard
intransitives.
Compare the approach proposed here, according to which intransitives are
defined in the same way in all languages: they select cognate objects which
normally remain implicit; whenever a cognate object is syntactically realized, the
intransitive verb assigns objective Case to it. In the preceding discussion, the
conclusion has been reached that there exist no clear tests that allow us to
distinguish between two classes of verbs, transitives and intransitives. Therefore,
transitivity cannot be viewed as a property of a lexical class, and we cannot impose
a constraint to the effect that only transitives can passivize. In other words,
intransitives are compatible with passivization in all languages.
I have also assumed a unique, non-parametrized analysis of copula
passivization, which crucially relies on the visibility of the direct object position,
which holds in particular for passive (in)transitives (compare Marantz's (1984) and
Baker's (1988) parametrization of passives). Besides allowing us to preserve a
unique analysis for passives, the hypothesis that the object position is visible in
passive (in)transitives also allows us to account for the crosslinguistic variation of
passive (in)transitives. The possibility or impossibility of (in)transitive passives
across languages depends on whether the chain that comprises the object position
obeys the indexing constraint stated in (43). This, in turn, depends on the particular
structure (and the indexing properties attached to it) that underlies impersonals
(and in particular impersonal passives) in a given language. Thus, within the

present account, the crosslinguistic differences that characterize (in)transitive
passives derive from the crosslinguistic differences concerning impersonal
constructions: the form of the chains underlying null objects in passives differ from
one language to another, depending on the type of impersonal constructions.
5. 1.6. Further evidence in favour of the indexing condition
The foregoing analysis of (in)transitive passives relies on an indexing condition
that governs the syntactic representation of the internal argument of (in)transitives.
This condition is not an ad-hoc requirement on null prototypical and cognate
objects. It holds for all the elements that are not assigned individuated reference, a
list of which is given in (48):
(48)
Elements that are not assigned individuated reference: expletives, arbitrary

and prototypical arguments, cognate objects, idiomatic NPs, a certain type of
sentential complements.
The proposed analysis of passive (in)transitives predicts that the contrast between
Romanian passives with postverbal subjects and French /7-passives can be
observed for all these elements. In what follows it will be shown that this
prediction is correct.
5. 1.6. 1. French on and Italian si
Before going into the analysis of a number of constructions that allow us to
compare Romanian and French, I will deal with a phenomenon concerning on 'one'
in French (the same holds for subject si in Italian). This phenomenon cannot be
discussed for Romanian, because this language does not present any overt pronoun
comparable to on. This element is a clitic pronoun which presents two distinct
interpretations: one which is synonymous of the first person plural (translatable by
we) and an arbitrary one (translatable by they''or one).
Cinque (1988) has observed the following interesting fact: in non-generic
contexts, the arbitrary interpretation cannot appear in passives or with
unaccusatives; in (49) for instance (borrowed from Cinque) the only possible
interpretation of on is 'we':25
(49) a. On est partis tout de suite.
one has left immediately
b. On a 6t6 punis tort
one has been punished unjustly
25
Grevisse quotes examples like on est venu voler la pharmacie 'one came to steal in the
pharmacy', where on is arbitrary, despite the unaccusative verb venir 'come'. I do not have a clear
proposal to make, but it seems to be the case that in examples of this type the subject of venir is
necessarily assigned an Agent interpretation, which turns the verb into an intransitive (for further
discussion see Section 5.3.2.).
155
A straightforward explanation of this phenomenon (which differs from Cinque's

own proposal, to which I refer the reader) is provided by the indexing conventions
stated in (42): examples (49) rely on -chains of the type (on, e), which are
necessarily indexed, due to convention (42)b; an indexed chain is assigned
individuated reference (by (42)c), which gives rise to the "we" interpretation;
correlatively the arbitrary interpretation26 is blocked by the obligatory assignment
of indices.
5. 1.6. 2. Idiomatic expressions
Since by definition idiomatic NPs 27 are not assigned individuated reference, they
are subject to the indexing condition in (43). The (marginal) grammaticality shown
in (50) is expected, because the idiomatic NPs occupy the direct object position,
which is allowed to stay non-indexed in French impersonals:
(50)
26
a. V.I1 a 6t6 cassS la crote id pendant les heures de travail.

it has been broken the crust here during the working hours
'People ate here during the working hours.'
b. ??// a fait la fete pendant les hemes de travail.
it was made the feast during the working hours
'People caroused during the working hours.'
(examples borrowed from A. Zribi-Hertz (1982))
c. Je suis sre que dans cette affaire il lui a graiss6 la patte.
I am sure that in this affair it himoat has been greased the paw
am sure that he was bribed in this affair.'
d. II lui a serr6 la vis par Marie.
it himoat has been put the screws on by Mary
e. Pendant tout le repas il 'en a pas souffl6 mot?&
during the entire meal it has not been breathed word
Note that on cannot show up in impersonals in French, because this element is a subject clitic,
which cannot appear in the object position. Therefore the only passives that we can construct with
on are of the type given in (49)b, i.e., passives associated with NP-movemenL
27
T h e discussion in this paragraph is based on examples borrowed (or adapted) from Ruwet
(1983) and Simatos (1987).
2
^This kind of example is relatively rare, for reasons which remain unclear. It seems that the rarity
of (50) is not due to an incompatibility between idiomaticity and passives, but rather to one
between idiomatic expressions and the impersonal construction. It is thus possible to find less
rigid idiomatic expressions, which accept the movement of the direct object in passives, but only
very marginally accept impersonal passives:
(i)
Le pli a vite pris.
the fold has been quickly taken
(ii)
Un role important a jou6par...
an important part has been played by ...
(iii)
VII a vite pris le pli.
it has been quickly taken the fold
(iv)
??/i a jou6 un rdle importanipar...
it has been played an important role by ...
As observed by I. Simatos (p.c.). examples (50)a-b are as marginal as examples

(2). But the condition on content licensing proposed for the low acceptability of (2)
cannot be invoked for (50)a-b, because in these examples there is no empty
category to be licensed: the idiom-chunks occupy the direct object position. What
seems to go wrong with (50)a-b is that they do not present any referential
argument: the subject NP is a dummy element, and the object NP is an idiomchunk. Compare (50)c-e, which are acceptable, because they contain subcategorized
PPs (see lui and en) which are referential. Note also that the active counterparts of
(50)a-e are perfectly grammatical, due to the presence of a referential subject (see
Jean a cassS la crote ici 'John broke the crust here' = 'John ate'). This account of
(50)a-e may suggest that the low acceptability of passive intransitives (see
examples (2)) is due to the same reason, i.e. to the lack of referential NP, rather
than to the content identification of pro. I shall leave the choice between the two
possibilities open, because it is not directly relevant for our present purposes.
Compare examples (51), where the idiomatic NPs appear in the subject position
of passives:
(51) a. * (on voit bien) que la crote a cassde ici pendant que...
(one can see very well) that the crust has been broken here during...
b. *(on voit bien) que la fete a faite ici...
(one can see very well) that the feast was made here ...
c. * (On sait bien) que la parte a graissde un haut fonctionnaire.
(one knows very well) that the paw has been greased to a higher official
d. *La vis lui a serr6e par Marie.
the screw himDat was tightened by Mary
These examples rely on chains of the type (NP, e), which are necessarily indexed,
and therefore assigned individuated reference, which is at odds with idiomatic NPs;
hence the observed ungrammaticality.
It is currently assumed (see Vergnaud (1985)) that certain idiomatic NPs are
allowed to move:
(52)
a. Le tournant estpris.
the turning is taken
b. Le pli est pris.
the fold is taken
'The habit has been acquired.'
Within the analysis proposed here, the moved idiom chunks are necessarily
assigned some kind of individuated reference, and thereby differ from their active
counterparts. For arguments going in this direction I refer the reader to Simatos
(1987, 1990).
Turning to Romanian, it is to be expected that in this language the passive
construction is ungrammatical with idiomatic expressions, even if the idiomatic NP
occupies the postverbal position:
(53)
a. *A fost ars gazul degeaba.

has been used the gas for nothing
157
'Time was wasted for nothing.'

b. * A fost luat loc imediat.
was taken place immediately
c. *A fost luat parte la intreceri.
was taken part in the competition
d. * J-au fost puse be(e-n roate.
himoat have been put sticks in the wheels
'His job was made difficult.'
e. *Le-afostdataplamoar.
themoat has been given water to the mill
'Grist was brought to their mill.'
f. *A fost omont timpul.
was killed the time
In (53) the verb necessarily agrees with the idiomatic NP (see in particular (53)d,
where the verb necessarily takes plural agreement). This indicates that these
examples rely on chains of the type (NP, e), 29 where NP occupies the (Spec, VP)
position and e the object position; since this chain has more than one member, it is
necessarily indexed (by virtue of (42)b), and this violates the condition on idiomatic
NPs.
5. 1.6. 3. Sentential complementation
In French, the verbs that take sentential complements (see the partial list in (54))
currently accept impersonal passives, as shown in (55):
(54)
accepter, admettre, appr6cier, convenir, constater, contester, confirmer,

d6couvrir, demander, dire, dSplorer, declarer, d6cr6ter, deviner, (d6)montrer,
estimer, expliquer, imaginer, juger, nier, postuler, prSdire, pr6voir,
promettre, pr6tendre, pressentir, pr6sumer, rappeler, r6pondre, reconnaitre,
refuser, redouter, regretter, sugg6rer, soupconner, supposer, souhaiter,
souligner, etc.
to accept, to admit, to appreciate, to agree on, to observe, to challenge, etc.
(55) a. II a ete rappel6 que tout le monde devait arriver l'heure.

it was reminded that everybody had to arrive on time
b. II a d6cid6 que nous partinons 10 heures.
it was decided that we would leave at 10 o'clock
c. II a etejug6 que les eleves n'avaientpas le niveau requis.
it was estimated that the students did not have the required level
d. II a etd suggre que nous partions a 10 heures.
it was suggested that we leave at 10 o'clock
29
Recall that according to Rizzi's analysis of postverbal subjects examples (53) rely on chains of
the type (pro, NP). As proposed in Section 5.1.5.1. above, this hypothesis has to be abandoned,
because (pro, NP) chains violate principle C of binding theory.

Romanian does not allow passives with the same class of verbs: 3 0
(56)
*A fost crezut / pretins /contestat /declarat/ spus/amintit

[CPc toat lumea
trebuie s ajung la ora 10].
[it] has been believed/ pretended/ contested (disputed)/ declared/ said/
reminded that everybody had to arrive at 10 o'clock
The grammaticality judgments shown in (55) and (56) are parallel to those
discussed above for passive intransitives (and passive transitives with null
prototypical objects), and for passivized idioms. It is desirable to extend the
analysis proposed for those constructions. Our main task is to show that the
configuration underlying passives with sentential complements is comparable to
that proposed for passive (in)transitives.
Following a well-established hypothesis (that goes back to Emonds (1976)), let
us assume that sentential complements d o not occupy N P positions, and in
particular, that they do not stand in the direct object position, 3 1 but in some
extraposition slot. I will assume that the object position associated with an
extraposed sentential complement is occupied by a pronominal empty category,
pro. 3 2 The exact S-structure position of the sentential complement is irrelevant here;
for concreteness, let us assume VP-adjunction:
30
One can find examples such as (i)-(iv), with a limited number of verbs, and with quite marginal
acceptability:
(i)
V.A fost acceptat ca mama s piece dup noi.
[it] has been accepted that mother leave after us
(ii)
VA fost constatat c mul[i elevi erau absenfi.
[it] was observed that many students were absent
(iii)
VA fost descoperit c niciunul din noi nu era in stare s...
[it] was discovered that none of us was able to ...
(iv)
VA fost sugerat c/subliniat c...
[it] was suggested that/ underlined that...
This possibility will be discussed below.
31
Within a derivational framework, Emonds has proposed a rule of necessary extraposition
(induced by the necessary deletion of the empty associated to S', by the rewriting rule NP ->
[[] S']); within a representational framework one may directly base-generate sentential
complements in "extraposed" positions and let the object position be occupied by pro. Any other
possible representation could be filtered by conditions on representations: as suggested by
Emonds, an empty head noun could not survive as a sister of S' (possibly because of ECP); on
the other hand, NP should not be allowed to exhaustively dominate S' because phrase structure
rules are necessarily of the type A -> C, and not of the type A -> B.
Âccording to Stowell (1981), this empty category is an NP-trace, resulting from the rightward
movement of the sentential complement. But NP-traces are currently assumed not to be marked
for Case: they result from the movement of an NP from a Caseless position towards a position to
which Case is assigned. Stowell's hypothesis is fundamentally different from this standard
assumption. The sentential complement does not move in order to be assigned Case, but in order
to avoid Case assignment: according to Stowell the movement of sentential complements out of
NP positions is forced by the Case Resistence Principle, which postulates that the projection of a
syntactic category which assigns Case (CP is taken to count as a V projection) cannot occupy a
position to which Case is assigned. But within this hypothesis the trace resulting from movement
bears Case, and this is not allowed by the definition of NP-traces.
(57)
159
VP
VP
CP
l \
V pro
The configuration underlying the Romanian examples in (56) would then be of the
type given in (58), where pro and e occupy the [Spec, VP] and [NP, V'] positions,
respectively:
(58)
IP
V-I
Vpass
tV
prOj
e;
CP
To account for the ungrammaticality of (56) one must show that (58) is ill-formed.
This ill-formedness cannot be due to the formal licensing of the chain (pro, e)
because such a chain is allowed in Romanian passives. The ungrammaticality must
therefore be imputed to the presence of a sentential complement. We may assume a
constraint on the (pro, e) chain associated with sentential complements: it must be
referentially non-individuated, and, given the theory proposed in 5.1.5., this in turn
requires that no index be assigned to it. This condition is natural if we want to keep
the referential properties of (certain) sentential arguments distinct from the kind of
reference characteristic of NPs.
The ungrammaticality of (56) is due to the fact that the underlying chain, (pro,
e), is necessarily indexed, by virtue of (42)b (because this chain contains more than
one element), and this violates the condition that characterizes the pro associated
with sentential complements.
Consider now the French impersonal passives in (55), which rely on the
configuration given in (59)b, comparable to the structure in (59)a, characteristic of
impersonal passives with NP complements:
(59)
a.
NP
IP
VP
b.
IP
NP
I'
VP
VP
tv
CP
NP
pass
tv
pro
CP
Vpass
In (59)b pro is legitimate, because it is formally licensed by the Case assigned by
the verb. 33 Since in (59)b pro is the only member of its chain (the associated
sentential complement is not a member of the chain), it is allowed to stay
unindexed, and thus no violation of the condition imposed by sentential
complements arises. As to the condition of content licensing, it is the sentential
complement that serves as a content licenser for pro.
Note that the requirement imposed by sentential complements is trivially
satisfied in active sentences in both French and Romanian, because in active
sentences a pro in the direct object position is the only member of its chain;
therefore, by the free indexing procedure, pro will be assigned no index, as
required by sentential complements.
Let us now examine a number of examples in which sentential complements are
marginally allowed with Romanian passives:
(60)
a. fost acceptat ca mama s piece dup noi.

[it] has been accepted that mother leave after us
b. 1 fost constatat c mulp elevi erau absenfi.
[it] has been observed that many students were absent
c. fost descoperit c niciunul din noi nu era in stare s...
[it] has been discovered that none of us was able to..
d. V.A fost semnalat/sugerat c...
[it] was pointed out/ suggested that..
33Sentential complements (or more precisely their pronominalized form) provide an interesting
confirmation of Pollock's (1983) hypothesis according to which French impersonal passives are
able to assign (Objective) Case to the postverbal position; in (i) the passive is compatible with a
clitic pronoun marked for accusative Case:
(i)
comme il (me) l'a rappeld / ddcidd / jug6 / suggerd,...
as il (meDat) it has been reminded/ decided/ estimated/ suggested ..
Note that Case-assignment cannot be tested for object NPs: because of the Defxniteness Effect, a
definite NP is ungrammatical in *il a 6t6lu le livre dont tu m'asparl 'il has been read the book
about which you talked to me'); hence the ungrammaticality of *il l'a 6t6 lu 'il it has been read'.
The grammaticality of (i) indicates that when le stands for a sentential complement it does not
count as "definite" (the notion of "referentially individuated" is distinct from the notion of
"definite").
In (60) the sentential complement is associated with a chain of the type (pro.e),
which is necessarily indexed. Within the analysis proposed here, this means that
examples (60) are interpreted in terms of individuated reference. One may use two
tests to establish whether sentential complements are interpreted in terms of
individuated reference: (a) glosses using the fact and (b) pronominalization using
the indeterminate plural pronoun acestea 'these, these facts' (Romanian does not
present any closer counterpart of it):
(61) a. Ion a amintit faptul c...
John reminded (mentioned) the fact that ...
b. Ion a aflat faptul c...
John learned the fact that..
(62) a. Ion a spus acestea fr nici-o urm de regret
John said that (lit. 'those (words)') without any regret (sorrow)
b. Acestea au fost spuse/amintite fr nici-o urm de regret
that was said without any regret (sorrow)
Note that the two tests do not completely correlate with each other: faptul is
possible only with factives (i.e., with the verbs that presuppose the truth of their
complement), whereas pronominalization applies to a larger class.
With certain verbs, glosses like those in (61) and (62) are illicit, which indicates
that such verbs do not allow a referentially individuated interpretation for their
sentential complements:
(63)
a. *Ion a considerat/crezut/pretins faptul c discupa era inchis.

John considered/ thought/ pretended the fact that the discussion was
closed
b. *Ion a pretins acestea fr nici-o urm de regret.
John pretended these without any regret
In other cases a change in interpretation can be observed:

(64)
a. Ion a considerat/crezut c discupa era inchis.

John considered/ thought/ that the discussion was closed
b. Ion a considerat/crezut acestea fr nici-o urm de regret
John considered/ thought these without any regret
Examples (64)a mean that John said that..., or that John thought that.... Examples
(64)b, on the other hand, are understood as saying that John examined/ believed
something that somebody else had said.
The verbs in (63)-(64) are precisely those that do not allow the passive:
(65)
a. * A fost considerat/crezut/pretins c...

[it]was considered/ thought/ pretended that...
The ungrammatically shown in (65) is due to the fact that in Romanian passive
constructions, the sentential complement necessarily takes an interpretation in terms
of individuated reference, but verbs like a considera, a crede or a pretinde do not
allow this interpretation.
The French examples in (66) are comparable to the Romanian examples in (60),
insofar as they are also interpreted in terms of individuated reference:
(66)
a. Que les deux tours soient bien distincts est confirmspar le fait qu'ils sont
combinables entre eux.34
that the two constructions be distinct is confirmed by the fact that they can
be combined with each other
b. ?Que les gens arrivent en retard a finalement 6t6 accepte par tout le
monde.
that people arrive late has finally been accepted by everybody
The sentential complements in (66) stand in an S-initial A'-position (like the other
sentential complements), and are associated to a chain of the type (pro, e) which is
necessarily indexed.
Note that the verbs that allow (66) also allow glosses using the fact or a
pronominal complement:
(67)
a. Jean l'a
dit/rappelS/suggSrS/confirms
John it has said/ reminded/ suggested confirmed
b. Ca a 6t6 dit / confirms / rappelS / suggSrS plusieurs reprises.
it was said/ confirmed/reminded/ suggested several times
c. Jean a dit/rappelS/confirms le fait que...
John said/ reminded/ confirmed the fact that...
In (67)a object NPs such as cela, ga or le are allowed, and these pronominal NPs
can be moved to the subject position, as shown in (67)b. The reference of this kind
of pronoun is weakly individuated: a prepositional content which can be
pronominalized counts among the "individuals" that constitute the background of
our linguistic productions.
Those verbs that do not allow individuated sentential complements (see (68)) are
precisely those that do not allow the movement of the sentential complement (see
(69)):
(68)
a. *Jean l'a jugS/ considSrS plusieurs reprises.

John it has estimated/ considered several times
b. *Ca a StS jugS / considSrS plusieurs reprises.
it was estimated/ considered several times
c. *Jean a jugS le fait que...
John estimated the fact that
(69)
* Que Jean soit coupable a StSjugS/considSrS.
that John be guilty was estimated/ considered
To sum up, French and Romanian appear to behave alike in allowing sentential
complements to be interpreted in terms of individuated reference (see (66) and
Înterestingly, example (66)a (which is a quotation from Milner (1982: 69)) differs from the
corresponding impersonal construction by the verbal mood of the sentential complement, which
indicates that the two sentences rely on distinct structures:
II est confirms que les deux tours sont bien distincts.
it is confirmed that the two (grammatical) constructions are distinct
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (intransitives
163
(60)). Relevant for the present discussion are those verbs that do not allow this
interpretation: such verbs are allowed to appear in French impersonal passives
because in this language the object pro in impersonal passives is the only member
of its chain. In Romanian, on the other hand, the same verbs cannot be used in
passive constructions,35 because the empty category in the direct object position of
passives is necessarily part of the chain that includes the subject position; such a
chain is necessarily indexed, and therefore it is assigned individuated reference,
which is not allowed.
A short note is in order concerning the English counterparts of the constructions
discussed above:
(70)
It was believed e (held, reasoned,...) that the conclusion was false.
Examples (70) cannot be assigned the analysis proposed here for French, since
English does not present impersonal constructions relying on two distinct chains.
We must therefore analyze (70) as involving a chain of the form (it, e), where the
empty category e occupies the direct object position. According to the present
theory, this chain should be necessarily indexed, and as such it should not allow the
interpretation in terms of non-individuated reference. I leave this problem open for
further research. 36
Williams (1979) has observed that some of the verbs that can appear in (70) do
not allow the sentential complement to appear in the pre-verbal position (cf. *thatS
was held (reasoned)). The foregoing discussion of comparable examples in French
extends to English.
5. 1. 6. 4. The French stylistic inversion
Let us now consider the French stylistic inversion, which clearly contrasts with the
corresponding il impersonals. In particular, the stylistic inversion is incompatible
with both (in)transitive passives and passive verbs with sentential complements,
see (71) and (72) respectively:
(71)
a. * On vous communiquera le jour quand sera parte de ce probleme.

we will communicate you the day when will be spoken about this
problem
b. *Je veux que soitproc6d6 une enquete.
I want that be proceeded to an inquiry
c. *la ville ou a d6ja ete construit surpilotis
the town where has already been built on piles
d. *le Stade ou a 6t6 couru pendant toute la joumee
35
The same generalization holds in Spanish, with certain exceptions which are mainly
counterparts of the exceptions discussed above for Romanian.
^Following Zwicky (1971), Emonds (1976, Section IV.2) notes that verbs such as mumble,
whine, etc. cannot be passivized:
*It was whined/mumbled/shrieked/growled/quipped by Morris that night was falling.
This impossibility is expected under the present account, because the chain (it, e) to which the
sentential complement is associated is necessarily indexed.

the stadium where has been run during the whole day
(72)
a. *le jour quand a rappete que les enfants devaient aniver 1'heure
the day when was reminded that the children had to arrive on time
The French stylistic inversion differs from impersonal passives by the fact that the
postverbal subject agrees with the verb, which indicates that the postverbal subject
is coindexed with the empty category in the [NP, IP] position 3 7 (see Kayne and
Pollock (1978); Kayne (1983); Pollock (1983)):
(73)
la ville ont d6j construits trois ponts

the town where have already been built three bridges
37
The contrast between (i) and (ii) constitutes further evidence in favour of the idea that passives
in the stylistic inversion rely on the coindexation of the subject and object positions. According
to Pollock (1986), examples (i) are ungrammatical because a variable (the empty category that
occupies the direct object position) violates binding condition C: it is bound by the empty
category in the subject position. II impersonals on the other hand are grammatical (see (ii)),
because the variable is not coindexed with it
(i)
a. *Combien de coupables. aurais-tu aim6 [que e. soient condamn6s e.]?
how many culprits, would you have liked [that e. be condemned e.]
b. *Combien de criminels. Pierre a-t-il [que. aient relax6s e.]?
how many criminals. Pierre has he denied [that e. have been released e.]
(ii)
a. Combien de coupables. aurais-tu aim6 [qu'iL soit condamn6 e.]?

how many culprits, would you have liked [that iA be condemned e.]
b. Combien de criminels. Pierre a-t-il [qu'il. ait relax6 e.]?
how many criminals Pierre has he denied [that iL have been released e.]
There is in fact another possible analysis for examples (i) in a representational model (i.e. a
system in which one does not worry about the input of wh-movement): the second empty category
would count as an -trace, and the variable would occupy the preverbal subject position. The
observed ungrammaticality would still be explained: it would be due to the fftai-trace effect.
Note that principle C incorrectly rules out examples such as (iii)-(iv), in which the postverbal
subject is bound by the empty category in the subject position:
(iii)
J'aurais aim6 que ej soient condamrts [cent coupablcs]j.
I would have liked that e. be condemned [one hundred culprits].
(iv)
Pierre a ni6 qu'ej aient re/ax& [cent criminels]i.

Pierre has denied that e. have been released [one hundred culprits].
Since (iii) and (iv) are correct, we must assume that the postverbal NP does not occupy a position
which is C-commanded by the empty category; in other words, in the stylistic inversion the
postverbal subject does not occupy the [NP, V'] position but rather some A' position. This means
that the chain configuration underlying (iii) and (iv) is not just (e, NP) but rather one which
involves three elements: the lexical postverbal NP, and two empty categories, which occupy
respectively the [NP, IP] and [NP, V'] positions. This analysis of the stylistic inversion also
predicts that examples (i) are ungrammatical: by definition, variables cannot occupy A'-positions.
Compare examples (ii), which are correct because the variable occupies an -position and does not
violate principle C.
165
Another correlated difference between the French stylistic inversion and il

impersonals concerns the assignment of Case to the postverbal NP. Examples
(74)a-b are ungrammatical because passives do not assign objective Case in the
stylistic inversion:
(74)
a. *7e jour quand l'a rappel6 /d6cid6/jug6/sugg6r6

the day when A c c u s was reminded/ decided/ estimated/ suggested
b. */e ddsire que le soit rappel6/d6cid6/jug6 / sugg6r6.
I wish that i t A c c u s be reminded/ decided/ estimated/ suggested
Assuming this sketchy analysis of the stylistic inversion, let us return to the
ungrammaticality shown in (71), which indicates that (in)transitive passives are not
compatible with the stylistic inversion. The reason might be that in the absence of a
lexical subject, chains of the type (e,e) are illicit in a non-pro-drop language.38
Examples (72) are also ungrammatical, but the reasons are somewhat obscure. It
is also not very clear why idiomatic expressions are ungrammatical in (75):
(75)
a. *la piece ou a cass6e la croutependant les hemes de travail

the room where was broken the crust during the working hours
b. *la piece ou a faite la fete pendant les heures de travail
the room where was made the feast during the working hours
c. *Je veux que lui soit graissSe la patte.
I want that himoat be greased the paw
d. *Je ne veux pas que soit souffl6 mot de cette histoire.
I do not want that be breathed a word about this story
It is reasonable, but stipulative, to assume that the A'-position characteristic of

stylistically inverted subjects is not accessible to non-indexed NPs, and therefore
not accessible to either sentential complements and idiomatic NPs. I leave this open
for further research.
5. 1. 6. 5. German impersonal passives
If my theory of passive (in)transitives is correct, it should be applicable to those
languages in which transitives with null prototypical objects (just like intransitives)
passivize freely. German is a case in point.
German impersonal passives allow various complements (see (76)a), but
disallow overt direct objects marked for accusative Case (see (76)b):
(76)
38
a. Es wurde dem Schler geholfen.

it was theoat student helped
'The student was helped.'
b. *Es wurde diesen Roman (von vielen Studenten) gelesen.
it was thisAccus novel (by many students) read
The case of German impersonals, to be discussed below, offers an interesting apparent counterexample to this claim.
The ungrammaticality of (76)b can probably be derived from the type of impersonal
structures characteristic of German, and a violation of the Case filter may be
invoked: the passive verb cannot assign objective Case. This indicates that the
configuration underlying German impersonal passives cannot be of the type in
(77'), built on the model of French il impersonals: (77') is illicit for the same
reasons that rule (76)b out (object pro is not formally licensed, because it cannot be
assigned Case):
(77)
Es wurde bis spt in die Nacht gegessen.

it was till late in the night eaten
(77') Oes wurde bis spt in die Nacht pro gegessen
Note also that in (77) es cannot be taken to be a subject NP, because it is

necessarily absent in all the constructions in which the subject occupies the [NP,
IP] position.39
(78)
a. Gestern wurde (*es) bis spt in die Nacht gegessen.

yesterday was (*it) till late in the night eaten
b. Ich weiss, dass (*es) bis spt in die Nacht gegessen wurde.
I know that (*it) till late in the night eaten was
Compare the paradigms shown in (77) and (78)a-b to (79)a-c:

(79)
a. Es wurden zwei Romanej von vielen Studenten ej gelesen.

It were two novelsj by many students ei read
b. Gestern wurden zwei Romanej von vielen Studenten ej gelesen.
yesterday were two novels! by many students ej read
c. Ich weiss, dass zwei Romanej von vielen Studenten ej gelesen wurden.
I know that two novelsj by many students ei read were
We may assume that the abstract representations underlying (77) and (78)a-b are
those in (80)a-c, built on the model of examples (79)a-c (the only difference is that
the subject position is occupied by an empty category). Note also that in examples
(79) the verb does not agree with es but with the postverbal subject. This
constitutes further evidence in favour of the idea that in (76), (77) and (79) es does
not occupy the [,] position; hence the chain in (80)d, in which es is absent (it
is currently assumed that es is an impersonal Topic):40
(80)
39
a. Es wurde e bis spt in die Nacht e gegessen.

it was e till late in the night e eaten
b. Gestern wurde e bis spt in die Nacht e gegessen.
yesterday was e till late in the night e eaten
Cardinaletti (1990) argues that es is a displaced subject (which forces her to assume that the
Topic position is some kind of -position). What she means is that es must somehow relate to
the subject position, but it is not clear that a standard kind of movement can be invoked.
40
A S different from Cardinaletti (1990), I do not assume es to be part of the same chain as the
empty category under (,). The main motivation against this idea is (a) the lack of agreement
between es and the verb, shown in (79) and (b) the fact that I assume Topic to be an A'-position.
167
c. Ich weiss, dass e bis spt in die Nacht e gegessen wurde.

I know that e till late in the night e eaten was
d. (pro, e)
The chain in (80)d contains two members, and as such it should be indexed (by
virtue of (42)b), but this is disallowed by the null prototypical/cognate objects
characteristic of (in)transitives. To solve this problem, we must find a reason why
(80)d is allowed to stay nonindexed. A comparison with the chains characterizing
passives with null subjects in pro-drop languages is in order. The relevant chain is
again (pro, e), but in this case pro is governed by "pronominal" (or "strong") AGR
(see Rizzi (1982)). German, on the other hand, is not a pro-drop language (it is
only in certain impersonals that pro is allowed to appear), which indicates that
AGR is not pronominal. Let us then assume the following necessary condition on
indexing, that should be added to (42)a-c:
(81) Indices can only be assigned to chains that contain (a) an overt element in an
-position or (b) elements marked with pronominal (or strong) fi-features.
If (81) is correct, the German examples in (80) rely on a non-indexed chain, 41 and
therefore they are not assigned individuated reference, as required by the condition
on passive (in)transitives. Compare (82)a-c, where es occupies the [,]
position and therefore forms a chain with the empty category in the object position,
as indicated in (82)d. Since es is an overt element in an -position, the chain in
(82)d is necessarily indexed; hence the referential interpretation characteristic of
these examples: es may stand for das Buch or any other definite NP that can be an
object of lesen.
(82) a. Es wurde zu schnell gelesen.
it was too quickly
b. Gestern wurde es zu schnell gelesen.
yesterday was it too quickly read
c. Ich weiss, dass es zu schnell gelesen wurde.
I know that it too quickly read was
d. (esi,ei)
5. 2. Passive se with (in)transitives
In this section passive se 42 (in)transitives will be examined, which contrast with
copula passive (in)transitives: Romanian allows passive se (in)transitives (recall
'Each of the elements of this chain is nonetheless formally licensed: e is governed by the lexical
verb and pro is governed by wurde (on the idea that the elements that occupy C are licensing
heads in Germanic languages see Platzack (1987) for Icelandic, and Tomaselli (1987) for German).
Passive se supposes an implicit Agent (see ce livre se lit facilement 'this book se reads easily'),
whereas middle se does not suppose any (see cette brauche s'est cass6e ce matin 'this branch se
broke this morning'). I believe that these two "types" of se rely on the same underlying
configuration; the difference between them is essentially due to the lexical properties of verbs (an
that this language does not allow copula passive with (in)transitives), whereas
French does not allow them (while permitting copula passive (in)transitives). This
state of facts is quite surprising, given the current analysis, according to which the
passive se construction presents ail underlying structure comparable to that of
copula passives (see Belletti (1982), taken up in Chomsky (1981, pp. 270-271)).
Within the analysis proposed here for the passivization of (in)transitives, the first
question to answer is why the indexing condition on the chains underlying null
prototypical objects is satisfied in Romanian passive se (in)transitives (as opposed
to Romanian copula passives). The ungrammaticality of French passive se
(in)transitives will be traced back to a violation of principle A of binding theory.
The analysis extends to idiomatic NPs and clausal complements.
5. 2. 1. Copula passives and passive se
According to Belletti (1982), taken up by Chomsky (1981), the se that appears in
(83) has the characteristic properties of "passive" morphemes: it absorbs the
external th-role and objective Case.
(83)
a. Cette question s'est discute hier.

b. Aceast problem s-a discutatieri.
this question se-discussed yesterday
'This question was discussed yesterday.'
The conceptual disadvantage of this proposal is that the "passive" past participle
morpheme (in copula passives) and "passive" se are treated as synonyms; 43
correlatively, "passive" se and "reflexive" se are homonyms. This type of analysis
is, I think, a disguised instance of generative semantics: by postulating a passive
morpheme which "absorbs (or causes the absorption of) the external th-role", we
introduce semantic information into the syntactic representation. Further, the
semantic information that is thus introduced in the syntax is precisely what we are
trying to understand.
Let me then suggest an analysis within which semantics is interpretive, that is, it
can be read off structures which have been generated by a truly autonomous
syntax, one which makes no reference to the passive meaning of a given structure.
The syntactic representation should take into account the distinct formal properties
of the constructions under discussion: the verb BE (+past participle) for copula
passives, and se for se passives. None of these elements should be stipulated as
being a "passivizer" (i.e., as absorbing objective case and the external th-role).
TTie passivizing properties of se can indeed be derived from its anaphoric status.
Being an anaphor, se is by definition bound by the NP subject; being an object
clitic, it binds an empty category in the object position. These two relations are
standardly assumed to be notated by coindexation, so that we end up with the
indexing configuration given in (84), where NPj and ej occupy respectively the
implicit Agent is absent or present in the lexical representation of verbs). In other words, I believe
that "passive" se and "middle" se refer in fact to the same linguistic element.
43
Note that according to J.C. Milner (class lectures) complete synonymy is probably nonexistent
in general; morphological synonymy is even more questionable than lexical synonymy.
169
subject and the object position, and se occupies an A'-position, attached to the
inflected verb. Depending on the exact position of the verb relative to the subject
NP, se may stand in front of the lexical NP, but this does not bear on the present
analysis:
(84)
NPisejei
This assignment of indices is compatible with two possible chain configurations,

which underlie the middle/passive and the reflexive interpretations, respectively:
(85) a. (NPi sei ei) 44
b. (NPi) (sei ei)
(85)a corresponds to (83), and (85)b to (86):
(86) Jean se lave e.
John se washes e
'John washes himself.'
In sum, I assume that reflexive se and middle/passive se are essentially instances of
one and the same element (in particular, we need not postulate "absorption" features
for the passive se); the difference between the two configurations is simply a
difference in chain structure: reflexive se is the head of its chain, whereas
middle/passive se is an interemediary link of the chain.
5. 2. 2. Passive se with (in)transitives in Romanian
Let us now consider examples (87), which show that in Romanian, intransitive
verbs (as well as transitives with null prototypical objects) are allowed to appear in
se constructions:
(87)
a. se cint/se doarme/se muncete/se mninc

se sings/ se sleeps/ se works/ se eats
'one sings/ one sleeps/ one works/ one eats'
b. Nu se poate dormi cu atfia zgomot
not se can sleep with all that noise
'One cannot sleep with all that noise.'
The abundant literature on se/si constructions in Romance languages currently

analyzes this type of example (or, rather, the Italian or Spanish counterparts of
these examples, see si dorme in Italian) as involving impersonal si , which is
crucially different from passive si: impersonal si is a subject clitic which bears
nominative Case (Rizzi (1976);45 Belletti (1982); Chomsky (1981); Burzio (1981,
1986); Manzini (1986)). The status of impersonal si is still controversial. I agree
44
The chain in (85)a presents a number of variants; see in particular the French impersonal
constructions discussed below.
45
Rizzi (1976a) has tried to extend the analysis in terms of subject si to middle-passivizing si.
with those authors (see Hyams (1986)) who have explicitely acknowleged that the
constructions relying on this type of si are active constructions46 (comparable to
on- constructions in French), to be distinguished from those relying on
middle/passive si: like any nominative clitic, subject clitic si identifies an empty
category in the subject position, but bears no relation with the object position;
correlatively, subject si cannot be said to be an anaphor (no antecedent can be
defined for subject si). Insofar as subject si is not an anaphor, it stands outside
any possible unification with the other si's, which are anaphoric elements (see also
Section 5.3.): in particular, the configuration in (84) does not hold for subject si.
The term "impersonal si" is imprecise, because it could be used to refer to
examples such as il s'est vendu beaucoup de livres, which are impersonal (insofar
as they present an expletive subject), but do not involve subject/Nominative si. I
shall therefore adopt the label "subject" si instead of "impersonal" si; "passive" si
will refer to both impersonal passive si (see il se boit beaucoup de caf6 dans ce
pays 'il se drinks much coffee in this country') and the passive si associated with a
preverbal subject (see (83)).
Leaving aside for the moment the discussion of subject si, let us concentrate on
examples (87), and examine whether, contrary to the above-mentioned current
assumption, they can be analyzed in terms of passive se. One problem raised by
this hypothesis is the supposed incompatibility between (in)transitives and
passivizing strategies, but this has already been settled in previous sections.
Let us then assume that the underlying structure of examples (87) is comparable
to that in (83), the only difference being that in (87) the object position is occupied
by a null subject. (88)a-b correspond respectively to (83) and (87):
(88) a. (NP, se, e)
b. (pro, se, e)
This type of chain is similar to the one proposed above for passive (in)transitives,
insofar as the direct object position is visible. This analysis is forced here by the
anaphoric properties of se.
The perfect grammaticality shown by the Romanian examples in (87) is
unexpected: (88)b is a chain that contains more than one element, and as such, it
should necessarily be indexed (by the indexing convention stated in (42)b), and
consequently it should be assigned individuated reference (by virtue of (42)c); this
is incompatible with null prototypical/cognate objects, which cannot be assigned
individuated reference. This contradiction should either lead to ungrammaticality or
force the referentially individuated reading (e.g., "a song was sung"). But instead,
examples (87) are grammatical and interpreted as involving cognate/prototypical
objects.
Within the analysis proposed for copula passives, the interpretation characteristic
of (87) can only be accounted for if we can provide a principled reason for why
chains of the type in (88)b are not indexed. I will build on an obvious peculiarity of
these chains, namely the fact that they contain se, which is a lexical anaphor. Let us
assume the following:
46
Belletti (1982) distinguishes nominative and accusative si but does not explicitely assume an
active configuration for nominative si.
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)tiansitives 171

(89)
a. Lexical anaphors are assigned anaphoric;47 rather than referential indices,

b. Anaphoric indices do not count for the assignment of reference.
The use of anaphoric indices allows us to preserve the fundamental intuition behind
(42)b, namely the idea that a multi-member chain is marked by indexing (which is a
way of indicating that the members of the chain belong together). The undesirable
consequence of (42)b is avoided by the idea that anaphoric indexing d o e s not
necessarily correlate with individuated reference. A technical implementation and
motivation for (89)a-b will be provided in Appendix 1.
The idea that chains such as (88) are not assigned individuated reference also
explains the grammaticality of passive se with clausal complements:
(90)
a. S-a spus c Ion e nebun.

se-has said that John is crazy
47
The non-assignment of referential indices can be derived as a consequence of the presence of a

lexical anaphor as an intermediate link of chains; in this type of chain, the empty element in the
object position is bound by two antecedents: NP and se. Se is a necessary element of this chain:
in the absence of se no relation can be established between the subject and object position (it is
due to the presence of se that the subject and object positions are coindexed); since se is an object
clitic, the empty category in the object position counts as the "trace of se" but at the same time it
counts as the trace of the subject NP, which inherits the object th-role. This quite complex picture
differs from the neat standard cases of chains, characterized by a bi-unique relation between traces
and antecedents. One may suggest that complex chains of this type should be viewed as a
combination of two chains (e.g., (NP,e) and (se,e)), each of which is assigned indices. The
complex chain thus ends up with conflicting indices, because by free coindexation the same index
cannot be assigned to two distinct chains. It is reasonable to believe that this conflict of indices
results in index-deletion; for further discussion of index deletion (or rather non-assignment of
referential indices) see Appendix 1. The only type of indices that can be assigned to complex
chains are anaphoric indices.
This account raises the following question concerning passives with null subjects: they
involve two empty categories (which occupy the subject and object positions) and an element in
an A'-position, AGR, which is comparable to clitics with respect to the properties examined here.
In other words, the chain in (ii), corresponding to (i), can in fact be written as in (iii) or (iv),
depending on the exact position that one assumes for null subjects (see Rizzi (1982) and the first
chapters of this book, respectively):
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
A fost vindut.
has been sold
(pro, e)
(pro, AGR, e)
(AGR, pro, e)
The question is why in (i)-(iv) the empty category does not function as both the trace of AGR and
of pro, which would force us to assume a complex chain and as a consequence the deletion of
indices. Such an analysis would destroy most of the results obtained in Section 5.1. Fortunately,
however, chains of the type in (iii)-(iv) are clearly not complex, because AGR is exclusively
related to the subject position. In other words, in (iii)-(iv), pro is the only antecedent of e, and
AGR is the only antecedent of pro. Compare si (passive si in particular) which is an object clitic,
and as such necessarily binds an element in the object position; the "complexity" that arises in
passive si configurations is that the same element in the object position is also bound, via se, by
the subject NP.
'It was said that...'

b. S-a descoperit c Ion e nebun.
se-has discovered that John is crazy
c. S-a declarat c Ion e nebun.
se-has declared that John is crazy
Assuming that clausal complements do not occupy the object position but rather
some extraposed slot (see (5.1.6.3.)) examples (90) rely on a chain of the type
given in (88), which is assigned anaphoric indices (but not referential indices), and
thus satisfies the condition imposed by clausal complements.
The copula passive counterparts of (90) are ungrammatical (see (66)) because
the corresponding chains are of the form (pro, e). This is a standard two-element
chain, which is necessarily assigned referential indices by virtue of (42)b.
The behaviour of idiomatic expressions is also expected:
(91) a. S-a ars gazul degeaba.
se-has used the gas for nothing
One wasted time for nothing.'
b. S-a luat loc imediat
se-has taken place immediately
c. S-a luat parte la intreceri.
se-has taken part in the competitions
d Is-au pus befe-n roate.
to-him se-have been put sticks in the wheels
'His job was made difficult.'
e. Li s-a dat ap la moar.
to-them se-has given water to the mill
'Grist was brought to their mill.'
f. S-a omorit timpul.
se-has killed the time
In these examples, the idiomatic NP belongs to a chain of the type (se, NP, e); since
this chain contains se, it will be assigned anaphoric indices, and will thus avoid
undesirable referential properties (by definition idiomatic NPs cannot be assigned
individuated reference).
5. 2. 3. Passive se with (in)transitives in French
Consider now the ungrammatically of (92) 48 in French, which contrasts with the
Romanian examples in (87) on the one hand, and with the corresponding French
copula passives, on the other (see examples (1) and (2)):
(92) a. se parlera de vous la semaine prochaine.
-Hertz (1982: 397, note 28) observes that certain intransitives accept passive s e
constructions: il s'est discut6 / trait6 / d6cid6 /parte de ce point la derniire rSunion. The
acceptability of this kind of example decreases if the PP complement is absent: ?? il s'est discut
/parte pendant des heures, mais on 'est arriv6 aucune conclusion (for certain speakers these
examples are completely ungrammatical).
173
it se will speak about you next week

b. *I1 se procSdera
une
enquete.
it se will proceed to an inquiry

c. *I1 s'aboutira
un compromis
acceptable.
it se will arrive at / reach an acceptable compromise

d. *I1 se tirera sur les
manifestants.
it se will shoot at the demonstrators

e. *I1 se demandera/s'ordonnera/se
sugg6rera
de
partir.
it se will ask/ order/ suggest to leave

f. *I1 s'est ensuite couru jusqu' la gare.
it se has then run to the station

g. *I1 s'est d6j construit
surpilotis
(k cet
endroit).
it se has already built on piles (in this place)

h. *IIs'estappareilld
4h du
matin.
it se has set sail at 4 h in the morning

i. *Mais, il s'est dej mang6 dans cette
assiette.
but, it se has already eaten in this plate

These examples rely on the chain configuration given in (94)b, which is a particular
case of the chain in (94)a, corresponding to impersonal passive se constructions
with overt NPs (see (93)):
(93)
a. II se raconte
beaucoup
de betises ces
temps-ci.
it se tells much nonsense these days

'Much nonsense is told these days.'
b. II se lit de moins en moins de livres
id.
it se reads less and less books here

'Less and less books are read here.'
(94) a. (il) (sei, NPj)
b. (il) (sei, ei)
The indexing configurations shown in (94) can be ruled out as violations of
principle A of Binding theory: se is a lexical anaphor, but it is not bound, since se
is not coindexed with il. The perfect grammaticality of (93)a-b can be accounted for
if we assume that principle A of binding theory is in this case satisfied at LF, after
the movement of the postverbal NP to the position occupied by il (as required by
the Full Interpretation Principle). The ungrammaticality of (92) could be explained
if we were able to show that, as different from (93), these examples cannot serve as
an input for an LF representation of the desired type. The following constraint is
what we need:
(95)
Clitic-traces cannot move at LF. 49
^principle (95) leaves open the possibility to move clitic-chains as a whole. But note that if (se,
e) is moved as a whole at LF, we do not get rid of the violation of principle A: since se itself is
moved, it will still lack an antecedent at LF.
J 74 The syntax of Romanian
The impossibility of moving clitic traces is not a stipulation, but derives as a

consequence from the proper binding requirement, and more generally from the
Empty Category Principle (if we move clitic traces - and leave the clitic behind - we
end up with a configuration in which the clitic trace is not properly governed).
Given the ungrammatically of (92) we expect French impersonal passive se to
be incompatible with clausal complements (compare copula passives, which are
fully grammatical, see section 5.1.6.3.):
(96)
a. *// se rappelait/ rappelle rdgulidrement que tout le monde devait / doit

arriver l'heure.
it se reminded/ reminds regularly that everybody had/ has to arrive on
time
b. *Il se decide souvent que...
it se decides frequently that..
c. *I1 se juge trop souvent que les gens sont condamnables.
it se estimates too frequently that people are condemnable
d. *I1 s'6tait sugg6r6 que nouspartions 10 heures-50
it se had suggested that we leave at 10.
'it had been suggested that we leave at 10.'
Let us finally consider the ungrammaticality of (97):

(97)
a. *II se casse souvent la crote id.

it se breaks frequently the crust here
b. *I1 se fait trop souvent la fete.
it se makes too frequently the feast
The descriptive generalization seems to be that idiomatic NPs cannot move at LF,
which is not surprising, since idioms are frozen expressions, which should be
interpreted as a whole, with the idiom chunk next to the verb. I would simply like
SOrhe construction illustrated in (96) is acceptable with certain verbs:

(i)
II s 'est dit que Jean 6tait fou.
il se has said that John was crazy
(ii)
II s 'est dcouvert que Jean 6tait fou.
il se has discovered that John was crazy
(iii)
II se confirme que l'accord a 6t6 .
il se confirms that the agreement has been given
(iv)
II se chuchote /murmure /raconte partout que Maggy Thatcher va dmissionner.
il se whispers/ murmurs/ tells everywhere that M.T. is going to resign
()
II s'est 6crit quelque part que . T. allait dmissionner.
il se has written somewhere that M.T. was going to resign,
(examples (iv)-(v) are from A. Zribi-Hertz (1982)).
According to the proposed analysis, the acceptability of (i)-(v) might be due to the fact that certain
verbs allow a more individuated interpretation of their clausal complements; this would allow
certain sentential complements to count as NPs, and therefore to occupy the [NP, V'] position
from which they would move at LF. It is interesting to note that those verbs which are compatible
with the construction in (i)-(v) also seem to be able to assign Objective Case in passive se
constructions, as opposed to the general case: compare *comme il se le dclare/suggdre souvent to
the marginally acceptable Icomme il se le dit souvent / V.comme il se le raconte souvent.
to comment on a consequence of this proposal on passive impersonals such as

(98):
(98)
Ua6t6 fait la fete id
r6cemment
it has been made the feast here recently

In previous sections, it has been assumed that the Full Interpretation Principle
forces the LF movement of the postverbal "subject" of il impersonals towards the
position occupied by expletive il. This analysis cannot be maintained, given the
hypothesis that idiom chunks do not move at LF. One solution is to assume that it
is not the NP in the direct object position that is subject to movement, but rather the
adverbs or PPs, e.g. r6cemment in (98).
Conclusions
To summarize, the Romanian constructions of the type se Vintrans have been

analyzed as relying on passive se. The fact that French passive se impersonals
cannot be used with (in)transitives (nor with clausal complements or with idiomatic
NPs) is due to a violation of principle A of binding theory (se, or rather its trace, is
not coindexed with, and therefore not bound by impersonal il). In Romanian on the
other hand, se Vintrans sequences are grammatical because (a) principle A is met
(the trace of se is coindexed with the null subject) and (b) the underlying chain is
not assigned referential, but only anaphoric indices (for further discussion see
Appendix 1).
Let me insist on a difference between the proposed account of copula passives
and that of passive se. The acceptability of copula passives with (in)transitives
depends on an interpretive constraint: in those languages that do not allow them,
copula passive (in)transitives cannot be said to be truly ungrammatical, but rather
necessarily interpreted as passive transitives: the externalized argument is not
interpreted as a prototypical/cognate object but as a referentially individuated
argument. With passive se the interpretive constraint does not apply, due to the fact
that se presents anaphoric rather than referential indices. What rules se passive
(in)transitives out in certain languages is principle A of binding theory. This is why
in those languages that do not accept them, passive se (in)transitives are truly
ungrammatical, and cannot be "saved" by the referential interpretation.
This analysis of se (in)transitives differs radically from current accounts (see
Goldin (1968) for Spanish; Naro (1976) for Portuguese; Napoli (1973), Belletti
(1982) for Italian; and Pan-Dindelegan (1974) for Romanian), according to which
the se that shows up in se/si Vintransitive in pro-drop Romance languages is a
subject clitic. In the next section it will be shown that unlike the other pro-drop
Romance languages, Romanian does not present subject se.
5. 3. Remarks on certain contrasts between Romanian and Italian

5. 3. 1. Subjectsi
in Italian
Consider the following examples, which show that in Romanian se is incompatible

with adjectival copula constructions and with passives:
(99)
a. *Nu se este niciodat mulpimit.

not se is ever satisfied
b. *Adesea se este trdat de pneteni fal$i.
frequently se is betrayed by false friends
The ungrammatically of these examples can be understood if we assume that

Romanian has at its disposal just one type of se, which imposes a coindexation
relation between the object and subject position (see (84)). Examples (99) would
then be represented by the indexed configurations in (99'):
(99') a. *nu proj se este [ej mulpimit niciodat]
b. *adesea proi/j sej este trdat ej/j de pneteni fali
In (99')a the j indices represent the derivation proposed by Couquaux (1979,1981),
namely the idea that the subject of BE is generated as the subject of a small clause
which is a complement of BE. Since the verb BE does not subcategorize an object
position, the coindexation relation that defines se (see (84)) cannot be realized and
(99')a is ruled out. As for (99)'b, the j indices are imposed by the passive
configuration, and the i indices are due to the coindexing rule defining se itself. The
ungrammaticality of (99)b can then be analyzed as a violation of Perlmutter and
Postal's (1978,1984) 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law:
(100) No clause can involve more than one advancement to "1".
This law can be restated as a condition on representations:
(101) Two elements cannot be involved in more than one coindexation relations.
(99')b is illicit because the subject and the direct object are involved in two
coindexation relations, marked by i and j. 51
Consider now the Italian counterparts of (99), represented as in (102'):
We may imagine two other possible underlying representations for (99)b, depending on various
analyses of passives:
(i)
*Adesea proj se este [ej trdat ej de pneteni fal$i].
often pro. se is [e^ betrayed e. by unsincere friends]
(ii)
*Adesea proj/j sej este [ej/j tse trdat ej/j de prieteni fal$i].
According to (i)-(ii) passives share the small clause analysis of other copula constructions. They
differ from other copula constructions by the fact that with passives the object position is visible,
and coindexed with the subject position of the small clause. If (i) is the correct underlying
representaion of (99)b, this example is to be excluded on a par with (99')a: se cannot satisfy its
definition (since there is no object position in the main clause); on the other hand proj and the
object ey are too far from each other, being separated by subject ej. (ii) differs from (i) by the idea
that at D-structure se is generated attached to the lexical verb itself, rather than to be. In this case,
the defining property of se can be satisfied in the small clause embedded under be, hence the i
indices. The j indices on the other hand are due to the past participle (or passive) morpheme itself.
This indexing configuration is illicit on a par with (99')b, because the 1-Advancement
Eclusiveness Law is violated inside the small clause.
(102) a. Non si e mai contend.

not si is ever contents
One is never satisfied.'
b. Spesso si e traditi dai falsi amid.
frequently si is betrayed by false friends
One is frequently betrayed by false friends.'
(102') a. Non proj/j sij mai [ej contend].
b. Spesso proj/j sij e traditi ej dai falsi amici.
To account for the grammaticality of (102), we must assume that the type of si here
is fundamentally different from passive si, in that it does not impose the
coindexation of the object and subject position. This type of si is currently referred
to as subject/Nominative si. The term "subject sf captures the idea that this element
is coindexed with the [,] position exclusively (this correlates with its being
assigned nominative Case), hence the i indices in (102'). The j indices are imposed
independently: by virtue of the small clause analysis in (102')a and by the passive
rule in (102')b.
The representation in (102')a raises no problem, because it relies on subject si:
since subject si is not subject to the indexing condition in (84), it is allowed to
appear even if no direct object position is present. As to (102)b, it does not violate
(101) either, because in (102')b there is only one coindexation relation that holds
between the subject and object position: the one notated by the j indices.
The fact that subject si does not impose any coindexation relation between the
object and the subject position is also clear in (103), where the postverbal NP does
not agree in person and number features with the verb, and as such should be
analyzed as an object NP, distinct from the subject (realized as nominative si):
(103) a. In questa pasticcena si mangia soltanto i dolci al cioccolato.
in this pastry shop si eats only chocolate cookies
'In this pastry shop one can eat only chocolate cookies.'
b. In questa universit si studia le materie letterane.
in this university si studies literary subjects
(examples taken from Belletti 1981)
In (104) the object NP takes objective Case (pronominal clitics such as li, le are
marked with accusative Case):
(104) a. (I dolci al cioccolato) li si mangia volentieri in questa pasticcena.
(chocolate cookies) them si eats willingly in this pastry shop
b. (Le materie letterane) le si studia in questa universit.
(literary subjects) them si studies in this university
Since an NP which bears Objective case is present in (104), it is clear that in these
constructions si is not an intermediate link of a relation between the subject and
object positions (if such a relation were established, no objective Case could be
assigned). We must again conclude that the si that shows up in (104) is subject si.
The Romanian counterparts of (102)-(104) are all ungrammatical, which
indicates that this language lacks subject se. This generalization is further supported
by prepositional Accusative constructions (see Chapters 6-7); if subject se were
available in Romanian we would expect the examples in (105) to be correct (se

would be a subject clitic, and pe NPa direct object): 52
(105) *In fcoala asta se pedepsegte prea des pe elevi.
in this school se punishes too frequently PE students
Compare Spanish, which allows counterparts of (102)-(104); correlatively (106),
corresponding to (105), is grammatical:
(106) En esta escuela se castiga a los alumnos.
in this school se punishes A the students
I hope to have convinced the reader that Romanian is a pro-drop language that lacks
subject se. Despite its obvious character, this hypothesis has not yet been
proposed. Traditional grammars of Romanian draw lists of the various possible
interpretations of reflexives, among which we can find impersonal reflexives, a
label which in Italian and Spanish is used for subject si/se. "Die analysis relying on
subject se/si (see Naro (1976) in particular) has been explicitely extended to
Romanian by Pan-Dindelegan (1974), who disregards the differences presented
above, which set Romanian apart. I believe that the main difficulty in recognizing
the real nature of se in the Romanian constructions of the type se Vjntrans comes
from the misleading idea that (in)transitives are incompatible with passivization in
general, and with passive se in particular. On the other hand, it seems plausible to
say that se is a subject pronoun, because the Italian/Spanish counterparts of the
Romanian examples can indeed be analyzed in this way. No attention has been paid
to the fact that Romanian lacks most of the constructions relying on subject se/si. I
have taken this absence to be crucial, and I believe that it cannot be understood if
one assumes that Romanian has at its disposal subject se.
The fact that Romanian lacks subject se indicates that pro-drop is not a sufficient
condition for the existence of this element (contra Belletti (1982)); pro-drop might
be a necessary condition for the existence of subject se, but I leave this open here.
52
Sandfeld et Olsen (1936) register examples of this type, but they note that Iordan considers that
this construction is "fautive", i.e., incorrect in standard Romanian:
(i)
Se nume$te pe Popescu profesor.
se appoints pe Popescu professor
Sandlfeld and Olsen do not register any example corresponding to (104), which would present an
Accusative clitic with passive se. They do give a number of examples where the verb does not
agree with the postverbal subject, but it is clear that the Romanian examples are not counterparts
of (103); they display the lack of subject-verb agreement which characterizes substandard
Romanian:
(ii)
A scris copiii.
has written the children
In this example copiii is the subject of a trimis, even if it does not agree with the verb. These data
show a simplification of the verbal paradigm, in which the third person singular and plural forms
are identical. An example such as (103) in Italian is completely different, because the lack of
subject-verb agreement indicates that the postverbal NP does not function as a subject, but rather
as an object.
179
A last remark is in order concerning the necessity of a unitary analysis of si

constructions. It has been suggested above that a unitary characterization could be
proposed for middle/passive and reflexive/reciprocal se /si: se /si is an anaphoric
object clitic which, as such, requires the same index on the subject and object
positions (the difference between middle/passive and reflexive/reciprocal se/si is
due to a difference in chain configuration). Subject se/si on the other hand is not an
anaphor and does not bear any relation with the object position. Manzini (1986)
considers that what brings together all the occurrences of si is the fact that si is
coindexed with (NP, IP). Note, however, that even if the coindexation with the
element under [,] is indeed the common property of all the possible types of
si, it is not an interesting property in itself. Just like subject si, any other subject
clitic is coindexed with [,], However, the other subject clitics do not present
any counterpart of passive se (that is, an element that would establish a relation
between the subject and the object) as we would expect if the coindexation with
[,] were the fundamental, unifying property of all types of si.
This means that the formal identity between subject si and middle/passive si is
partially accidental: a language that presents reflexive and middle/passive si does
not necessarily present subject si. (Romanian is a case in point). Conversely, the
presence of subject si is probably related to reflexive-passive si. According to Naro
(1976), constructions of the type se V NP, involving passive si, came to be
reanalyzed as an S-V-0 sequence, with se taken as a subject pronoun. This
diachronic reanalysis53 did not take place in French, because this language had lost
free subject inversion very early in its history, and therefore sequences of the type
se VNP did not occur. As to Romanian, it seems plausible to say that the order SV-0 is less prominent than it is in Italian or Spanish (recall that according to the
analyses put forth in Chapters 1-4 above, the basic word order of Romanian is Vinitial), and therefore a preverbal element was not necessarily interpreted as a
subject. Note also that unlike certain Italian dialects, Romanian does not present
subject clitics; in the absence of subject clitics the reanalysis rule would probably
not apply, because it would give rise to a type of element which is not already
present in the language.
5. 3. 2. Unaccusative verbs and passive se
According to a well-known generalization, unaccusatives (in the sense of
Perlmutter (1978,1989)) do not passivize:
(107) a. * fostcrescut producta cu 10%.
has been augmented the production by 10%.
b. *A fostsczut temperatura cu 10.
has been decreased the temperature by 10
c. *Apa e inghefat la 0.
the water is frozen at 0
d. *A fost inverzit iarba.
has been become green the grass
^Scholars dealing with the history of Romance languages agree that middle/passive si/se was
current well before subject si/se, which appeared in the sixteenth century.
e. *Au fost mcepute curswile.

have been begun the courses
Examples (107) can be analyzed as a violation of the "1-Advancement
Exclusiveness Law" stated as in (101): the subject and object positions are related
by two movement relations, imposed respectively by the passive and the lexical
properties of unaccusatives.54 (108), with passive se, can be explained in the same
way.
(108) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
*S-a crescutproducta cu 10%.

*S-a sczut temperatura cu 10.
*S-ainghe(atapa.
* S-a mverzit iarba.
* S-au inceput curswile.55
(the glosses are like those in (125), with se instead of the copula passive.)
The problem is that we find Romanian examples such as (109):

(109) a. Ieri s-a ajuns drziu acas.
yesterday se has arrived late at home
b. S-a plecat tirziu.
se has left late
c. Se lipsegte des in ultimul timp.
se misses classes frequently lately56
^ F r e n c h impersonal passives are a bit more complicated:

(i)
* II a 6t6 arriv6 beaucoup de monde.
it has been arrived many people
(ii)
*Ila 6t6 beaucoup de garfons hier.
it has been born many boys yesterday
(iii)
*I1 6tait manqu6 beaucoup d'tudiants la r6union.
it was missed many students at the meeting
In order to account for (i)-(iii), we must assume that at LF expletives must be deleted, and this
can be done by the movement of the NP from the object position to the subject position (see
Reuland (1985), Chomsky (1986a, 1989)). Under this assumption the LF representations of (i)-(ii)
are as in (iv), characterized by two coindexation relations, one imposed by the passive
phenomenon, the other by the lexical properties of unaccusatives:
(iv)
* Beaucoup de mondej/j a 6l6 arriv6 ej/j.
many peoplej/j has been arrived ej/j
This LF configuration is ruled out by virtue of (101).
55 Examples (107)d and (108) are correct under the transitive interpretation of the verbs (an
implicit human agent is presupposed), which is irrelevant here.
5 ( > N o t e , however, that this construction is very marginal (though not altogether impossible to my
ear) with non volitional unaccusatives:
(i)
?? In zilele noastre se create fr griji.
nowadays se grows up without a worry
(ii)
??5e apare pe neagteptate.
se appears unexpectedly.
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)transitivcs
181
The possibility of these constructions is probably not due to se itself, but rather to
the lexical properties of certain unaccusatives. Thus, in a number of languages,
unaccusatives may passivize: 57 the French parvenir 'arrive at' and descendre
'descend, go down' must be classified as unaccusatives, because they take etre (note
in particular je suis (*ai) descendu jusqu' 30 mttres de profondeur. am (*have)
descended up to 30 meters under ground'), but they can nevertheless be found in
impersonal passives:
(110) 111 a parvenu un accord satisfaisant.
it has been arrived at a satisfactory agreement
II a 6t6 descendu jusqu' 30 mitres de profondeur.
it has been descended up to 30 meters under the ground
The problem raised by (109) is exactly the same as the one raised by (110): the
indexed representation in (110') is an LF representation which is illicit by virtue of
the 1-Advancement Eclusiveness Law:
(109') a. Ien proj/j sj-a ajuns ei/j tirziu acas
(110') a. J/j/j a dte parvenu ej/j a un accord satisfaisant.
In (109') the i indices are imposed by se, and the j indices are due to the lexical
properties of unaccusatives; similarly in the LF representation given in (110'), the
movement imposed by the passive coexists with the one imposed by unaccusatives.
The only way out is to assume that in impersonal copula passives and passive se
constructions, unaccusatives lose their lexical specification and behave on a par
with intransitives.
The shift from unaccusative to intransitive behaviour may be subject to
crosslinguistic variations (factors such as volition, human activities/ states, etc. may
be relevant in certain languages, but not in others),58 but basically the same process
is at work. Note also that even with respect to the other current tests for
unaccusatives (see Perlmutter (1978, 1989)), certain verbs behave in a paradoxical
way:
(111) a. Je voudrais savoirpourquoi Jean a manqu6hier.
I would like to know why John missed (the class) yesterday
57
See German impersonal passives with sterben 'to die' and bluten 'to bleed' in contexts in which
a volitional Adv is present. Note that a volitional interpretation is a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition for unaccusatives to allow passivization: gehen 'to go', nahen 'to come closer' and
kommen 'to come' are clearly volitional, but they do not passivize. In some languages the
passivization of unaccusatives is not even a marked, or marginal possibility, but a current option.
Oskaragoz (1980) gives examples that show that in Turkish, impersonal passives can be
constructed with unaccusatives such as dii$ 'fall' and biiyii 'grow up' which are clearly not
volitional (but are restricted to human beings). In Lithuanian even the restriction to humans does
not hold.
Âccording to Givon (1981) there exists at least one language, Ute, which allows all verbs to
passivize. This means that in this language no verb is lexically marked as belonging to the
unaccusative class; or else the shift from unaccusatives to intransitives is completely free in Ute.
b. *Manqu6, Jean ne pouvaitpas nous entendre.

missed, John could not hear us
c. II manque trois enfants.
it misses three children
'Three children are missing.1
d. II enj manque trois ei.
it EN misses three
'Three of them are missing.'
In (11 l)a-b manquer 'to be missing' qualifies as an (in)transitive rather than as an
unaccusative: it takes the auxiliary avoir, and it cannot appear in an absolute
participial construction (compare the behaviour of am'ver). But in (lll)c-d the
same verb (with no significant difference in meaning) qualifies as an unaccusative.
It thus appears that even in languages where unaccusatives clearly present a
specific behaviour with respect to certain tests, these tests do not necessarily
correlate with one another. This means simply that the verbs that are currently
referred to as "unaccusatives" do not form a homogeneous class (only part of them
pass all the tests): in a number of constructions, unaccusatives behave as
intransitives.
We are thus led to the conclusion that those unaccusatives that appear in
impersonal passives should be labelled in the Lexicon as both unaccusatives and
intransitives.59 Which of these specifications is realized depends on the syntactic
environment. This view of the Lexicon can be found in Gruber (1976: 158),"[...]
the Theme is optionally identified as an Agent. In fact, this is possible as a general
rule if the subject is Animate" (the examples given by Gruber to illustrate this
proposition are go into, roll down, float across).
This discussion cannot be pursued here, and refinements are obviously
necessary. But the crucial idea is, I think, correct: the passivization of unaccusatives
is a problem which does not raise major problems for the syntax, but rather for our
view of the Lexicon; more precisely one must admit that certain unaccusatives
(perhaps all those that take animate, and especially human, subjects) may function
as intransitives.
What is important for our present concerns is the fact that the Romanian
examples in (109)a-c (note that the verbs in (109), as opposed to those in (108),
select an animate subject) are no more problematic than passive unaccusatives in
French or German. They are in fact less problematic than the latter, because it is not
at all clear that the lexical class of unaccusatives is relevant for the syntax of
Romanian (the current tests for unaccusativity are unavailable: Romanian does not
present the have/be alternation (see Chapter 1), and Romanian lacks a counterpart
of the French clitic
see ne in Italian)).
59see also Hoekstra and Mulden (1990), who discuss a great amount of data which indicate that
certain verbs function as both intransitives and unaccusatives. They propose a rule that turns
intransitives to unaccusatives.
60 A test does however exist: absolute past participles are allowed with unaccusatives, and
disallowed with intransitives:
(i)
Ajuns acas, Ioana a deschis televizoml.
arrived at home, Ioana put the TV on
(ii)
Plecal la rzboi, Paul a uitat de ai lui.
gone to the war, Paul forgot his people
183
5. 3. 3. On the ambiguity of Italian si with (in)transitives

The Italian constructions of the type illustrated in (112) are currently analyzed as
relying on subject si; in other words, this construction would be possible by virtue
of what makes the examples in (102)-(104) possible:
(112) Non si dorme piu con tutto questo rumore.
not si sleeps any longer with all this noise
Since Romanian does not have subject se at its disposal (see in particular the
ungrammaticality of the Romanian counterparts of (102)-(104)), I have attempted to
show that the Romanian counterparts of (112) can be analyzed as passive se
constructions. We may then wonder whether the Italian examples of the type in
(112) present subject si or whether they are counterparts of the Romanian
construction, in which case they are to be analyzed as involving passive si.
If my analysis of Romanian extends to Italian, examples like (112) do not
belong to the class of constructions in (102)-(104), and the contrasts in (113),
noted by Cinque (1988), are expected. I give under (113) Cinque's (5)a-g; the
reader is referred to the other [-finite] contexts in which the contrast appears (see
Cinque's (6) and (7) for Aux-to-Comp and gerundives):
(113) a. Sembra non essersi ancora scoperto il vero colpevole.
[it] seems not to be-si yet discovered the true culprit
'It seems that the true culprit has not yet been discovered.'
b. Sembra non essersi lavorato a sufficienza.
[it] seems not be-si worked sufficiently
'It seems that there was not enough work.'
c. * Sembra essersi amvati troppo tardi.
[it] seems be-si arrived too late
d. *Sembra essersipreoccupato solo un genitore.
[it] seems be-si preoccupied only one parent
e. * Sembra non essersi benvenuti qui.
[it] seems not be-si welcome here
f. * Sembra non essersi stati invitati da nessuno.
[it] seems not be-si be invited by anybody
g. * Sembra non nsultarsi ignorare il problema.
[it] seems not to appear-si to ignore the problem
(iii)
*cintatacas, Ioana..
sung at home, Ioana ...
(iv)
*Muncit, Ioana a incereat s se odihneasc.
worked, Ioana has tried to take a rest
Note, however, that this test is not entirely reliable: certain unaccusatives are ungrammatical with
"absolute" past participles:
(v)
*Lipsit, Ion n-a aflat vestea cea bun.
missed, John has not heard the good news.
This paradigm indicates that intransitives (see (113)b) compare with transitives (see
(113)a) and contrast with unaccusatives, psych verbs, copula constructions and
passives (see (113)c-g).
The generalization underlying the contrast between (113)a and (113)c-g seems
clear: in [-finite] contexts passive si is allowed (see (113)a), whereas subject si is
not (see (113)c-g). Note that examples of the type in (113)a are grammatical only if
the postverbal NP agrees with the verb. In the absence of agreement the si is
necessarily subject si, which gives rise to ungrammaticality, on a par with (113) cg. ((132 is Cinque's (79)a)
(114) *Sembra essersi venduto poche automobili.
[it] seems si have been sold (sing) few cars
Let us now try to understand the data: in particular, why subject si is not allowed in
(113)c-g and (114). As noted by Cinque, it is clear that the possibility of assigning
nominative Case cannot help us in distinguishing between the structures that rely
on passive si and those that rely on subject si: even if passive si presumably takes
accusative Case, the assignment of nominative Case is nonetheless necessary in
these constructions (see (113)a), in order to identify the pro element under [,],
What Cinque does not notice is that one may assume that it is the assignment of
nominative Case to si itself which is the relevant fact (the presence of nominative
pro is irrelevant). My proposal is that the ungrammaticality in (113)c-g is due to the
descriptive generalization stated in (115). It is important to note (this remark is due
to R. Kayne, p.c.) that (115) holds for the subject clitics that appear in the Italian
dialects (these elements are clearly syntactic clitics,61 cf. Rizzi (1986c), on a par
with subject si).
(115) Nominative clitics (be they phonological or syntactic) are necessarily
identified by AGR.
The condition stated in (115) allows us to account for the contrasts in (113) in
terms of the distinction between subject/Nominative si and passive/Accusative si.
Returning now to examples (113), the c-g examples are ungrammatical because
in these cases si can only be nominative (unaccusatives, adjectives and passives are
incompatible with passive si), and as such must be identified by AGR (as stated in
(115)), but there is no AGR. Example (113)a is grammatical because it allows the
presence of passive si (which takes objective Case) correlated with a nominative
pro, neither of which need be identified by AGR features (on the presence of pro in
[-finite] clauses see Rizzi (1982); Chomsky (1982)).
61(115) also holds for French subject clitics (whose clitic status is clear at Phonological Form,
but debatable in the syntax, cf. Kayne (1984)), and in particular for on:
(i)
Jean '6tant pas la maison, Marie est allSe au cin6ma.
John not being at home, Mary went to the cinema
(ii)
Lui 'tant pas la maison, Marie est all6e au cin6ma.
him not being at home, Mary went to the cinema
(iii)
*Onn '6tant pas la maison, Marie est all6e au cin6ma.
on ['we'] not being at home, Mary went to the cinema
(iv)
*II '6tant pas la maison, Marie est a116e au cin6ma.
he not being at home, Mary went to the cinema
The crucial observation for our present concerns relates to (113)b, whose main
verb is intransitive. Its grammaticality indicates that this example must be analyzed
as relying on passive si and not on subject si. We thus reach the conclusion that at
least in [-finite] clauses, si intransitives rely on passive si in Italian. In finite clauses
si intransitives are structurally ambiguous between a configuration relying on
passive si and one involving subject si.
5. 3. 4. An alternative analysis
I owe here an explanation for not adopting Cinque's (1988) distinction between
[+arg] and [-arg] si. The first reason is theoretical: [arg] features do not count
among the primitive notions of the variant of GB theory adopted here (see the
Introduction). Moreover, I believe that the distinction in terms of [arg] features is in
fact an artifact, which makes no clear prediction for independent data. This
distinction must be set against the background assumed by Cinque: si is analyzed
as a clitic (base-generated in an A'-position under Infi, as shown in (116))
coindexed with [,] (and AGR). TTiis definition raises a problem for the thcriterion in a number of cases, and more precisely with passives, unaccusatives,
etc., which assign no th-role to the [,] position at D-structure. Consider (116),
which corresponds to Cinque's (24)b; I have deleted the features that Cinque
assigns to the various elements:
(116)
IP
AGR
si
NP
parte
"If si is an argument, by the th-Criterion under the Projection Principle, it must be
associated with a th-role at every level of representation, including D-structure"
(Cinque (1988: 527)). But this requirement is not satisfied in (116), where the verb
belongs to the unaccusative class, and as such assigns a th-role to the [NP,V']
position, and leaves [Spec, IP], or rather [Spec, VP] with no th-role (the same
problem has been noted by Burzio (1986); Belletti (1982) and Manzini (1986)).
Cinque's solution is to assume that in (116) si is not an argument (hence the feature
[-arg] that would characterize it), as opposed to the si that shows up with transitives
and intransitives, which assign a th-role to [NP, IP], and thus allow the presence of
a [+arg] si. Thus, si dorme is compatible with two distinct representations,
depending on the [-arg] or [+arg] features that can both be assigned to si with
intransitives; correspondingly, we would get either an "argument" pro element, or a
"pleonastic" pro under [NP, IP]. 6 2 In other words, si dorme would be

systematically ambiguous in Italian, depending on the nature of si. Although this
ambiguity is real, I do not think that it can be characterized in terms of the [+arg]
versus [-arg] distinction. Consider indeed the S-structure representations of the two
types of si that Cinque postulates for si dorme. In both cases we get a th-chain of
the (pro, AGR, si,e) type (the order of the elements inside the chain is irrelevant
here), which is assigned the external th-role; si is assigned nominative Case. Since
this is the only type of information that we get at S-structure, the two postulated
configurations do not appear to be distinct at this level of representation. To see that
this is indeed the case, consider the French element on, and assume that it is a
nominative clitic not only at Phonological Form (see Kayne (1984)), but also at Sstructure. Depending on the verb, on may take either an external (see (117)a-b) or
an internal th-role (see (117)c-d),:
(117) a. On a mang6 des gateaux hier.
one has eaten cookies yesterday
b. On a parl6pendant des heures.
one has talked for hours
c. On est parti tout de suite.
one has left immediately
d. On a puni tort
one has been punished unjustly
Quite obviously, examples (117)c-d raise exactly the same problem as (116): by
hypothesis on is a [,] clitic, which appears to be compatible with an intern^
th-role. By analogy with (116) we should assume that on is necessarily [-arg] in
(117)c-d (the only argument in these examples would be a pro element basegenerated in [NP,V']); (117)a-b on the other hand would be compatible with two
distinct representations, depending on the [-arg] or [+arg] features that can both be
assigned to on in this case. 63 However, to my knowledge, a double analysis has
never been proposed for on, and Cinque himself does not do so. The problem is
that his analysis of si does extend to on, as I have just shown. And if we do not
want to accept a double analysis for on, we are bound to give it up for si.
There seems to be one way out of this difficulty. We may assume that on is only
a phonological, but not a syntactic clitic (cf. Kayne (1984)), which, as such, is
directly generated in an -position at D-structure; for non-clitics the [arg]
distinction is certainly irrelevant, so that (117)a-d would all involve the same on.
The problem is that paradigms comparable to (117) can be easily constructed with
subject clitics in general, and in particular with the syntactic clitics characteristic of a
number of Italian dialects. It thus appears that the problem raised by Cinque with
respect to (116) concerns not only si, but subject clitics in general, for which we do
not want to assume that the distinction in terms of [arg] features is relevant. This
6 2
A non-trivial assumption made here is the idea that at D-structure th-roles are allowed to be
assigned to an A'-position (si occupies an A'-position, and it is directly assigned a th-role, leaving
the [NP, IP] position with no th-role).
6
3 N o t e that like si, the on that shows up in (117)c-d is necessarily interpreted as "we" in nongeneric contexts. Compare (117)a-b, where on is ambiguous between "we" and the arbitrary
interpretation.
leaves us with two problems. The first concerns various theoretical refinements that
should make our theoretical framework compatible with data of the type in (116): a
reformulation of the th-Criterion, a more precise definition of the notion of
argument, or a modification of our view of D-structure are in order. The second
problem is empirical: since the [arg] distinction between the two types of si cannot
be adopted, we must look for another explanation of the contrasts in (113). And
this problem has already been solved above. Si doime can be analyzed as a passive
si construction: in this case si is an anaphoric object clitic, which, as such, (a)
identifies an empty category in the object position and (b) is bound by the subject
NP. Examples (113)c-g are ungrammatical because they present verbs which can
only be constructed with subject si (see the discussion in 5.3.1.), but subject si
cannot show up in [-finite] clauses. According to this analysis, si dorme is
systematically ambiguous between a configuration involving passive si (analogous
to the Romanian se doarme) and one which involves subject si.
Appendix 1: Indexed elements and indexed chains
An important part of the proposed analysis relies on a number of indexing
conventions which may look quite stipulative. Let me then try to justify (42)a-b and
(81), repeated here:
(42) a. Indices are assigned freely to one-member chains.
b. Indices are assigned necessarily to -chains that contain more than one
member.
(81) Indices can only be assigned to chains that contain (a) an overt element in an
-position or (b) elements marked with pronominal (or "strong") fi-features.
Conventions (42)a-b and (81) are conceptually different: (42)a-b deal with the
cardinality of a chain, whereas (81) deals with the nature of the elements
composing a chain. Note, on the other hand, that (81) is a necessary condition on
(42)a-b. Let us then try to make the relation between (42) and (81) explicit; what
we need is a relation between the assignment of indices to elements and the
assignment of indices to chains. A possible technical implementation is given in
(118)a-b, which apply on S-structure configurations:
(118) a. Assign an index to overt [+N] categories.
Overt [+N] categories:
(a) overt NPs in -positions (pronouns and full NPs);
(b) elements that occupy A'-positions and bear pronominal or
strong fi-features: pronominal clitics, pronominal AGR.
b. Coindex empty categories: empty categories inherit the index of their
antecedent.
The index assignment stated in (118)a applies "freely" in the sense that any [+N]
overt category is assigned a random index (i, j, ...t) or no index at all (this option
will be notated by 0). In other words, non-indexing is a subcase of free indexing.
However, we do not want to allow coindexation as a subcase of free indexing: the
indices assigned through (118)a are random, but necessarily distinct from each
other.
Before showing how (118)a-b work, let me mention that (118)a-b are close in
spirit, but technically different from Chomsky's (1980) indexing algorithms known
as "contraindexing of nonanaphoric NPs" and "coindexation by movement". The
coindexation of anaphoric NPs will be introduced into the discussion shortly.
Within the theory proposed here, (118)a is the only procedure of index
assignment, (118)b can be viewed as a procedure of index-inheritance, or indextransmission, that applies between an indexed element and an empty category,
which cannot be directly assigned an index. If there is no indexed element, the
procedure of index-inheritance itself cannot apply, and the chain will be left
unindexed. Thus, by (118)a-b we obtain the results that were previously captured
by means of (81), which is no longer necessary. A case in point is provided by
German impersonal passives (see the discussion in Section 5.1.6.5.), which rely on
chains of the type (e, e) that contain no element that could be assigned an index; the
first empty category is a null subject, which is not assigned an index, because
German does not present "strong" AGR (German is not a null subject language);
the second empty category is a null object, which occupies the preverbal position,
because German is an SOV language:
(119) Es wurde e e getanzt.
it was e e danced
Note furthermore that none of the conventions in (118)a-b corresponds to the
generalization stated in (42)b, which was crucial for my account of the
impossibility of Romanian passive intransitives. The crucial phenomenon that (42)b
was intended to capture was the necessary indexation of chains of the type (NP, e).
This necessary indexation can be shown to follow from the principles that
govern the identification of empty categories. By applying our indexing
conventions to copula passives, we obtain configurations as those shown in (120):
(120) a.
b.
c.
d.
This book was read e by Mary.

[This book]\/0 was reade by [Mary]j/Q
[This book]i was readei by [Ma/y]j/0
0[This book]Q was read e 0 by[Mmy]j/0
(obtained via (118)a)

(obtained via (118)b)
The configuration in (120)a is a non-indexed S-structure, base-generated as such

(recall that the presence of an empty category in the object position is due to the
verb BE). (120)b has been obtained via an application of (118)a. (120)c and (120)d
represent the two options that can be obtained by applying (118)b. But in order to
preserve the results of our previous analyses, we must show that the non-indexed
configuration in (120)d is illicit, the only legitimate option being the one in (120)c,
which is indexed. Our solution relies on the identification of empty categories. For
evident reasons, the empty category in (120) can be neither pro, nor a wh-trace or
PRO; it can be an NP-trace, but only if it is bound by its antecedent, i.e., only if it
shares the index of its antecedent, as indicated in (120)c. The possibility shown in
(120)d is illicit because in the absence of indices (recall that 0 is simply a notation
for non-indexing) the empty category in object position is not licensed. The
necessary indexation of multi-member chains thus appears to be a consequence of
Copula passives and middle/passive se with (intransitives 189
the licensing requirement of empty categories (more precisely empty anaphors); the
principle stated in (42)b can be dispensed with.
It is interesting to compare -chains to A'-chains such as clitic chains or (AGR,
e). I am going to argue in favour of representations like those in (121)b,d and
(122)b,d, which differ crucially from (120)c by allowing non-indexing. The
indicated indexing is necessary in order to capture the interpretation correctly: in
(121)c le functions as a predicate, and as such it should not bear an index; in (122)c
the null subject is an expletive which should not be assigned any reference.
(121) a. Mane l'a rencontr e hier.
Mary him has met e yesterday
b. (li,ei)
c. Intelligente, Mane Vest sans le savoir.
intelligent, Mary it is without it knowing
d. G0,e0).
(122) a. Pleac e miine.
[he, she] leaves tomorrow
b. (AGRj.ei)
c. Plou e.
[it] rains
d. (AGR0, e0) or simply (AGR, e)
What we have to explain is the difference between NP-traces and clitic-traces
(AGR-trace is a particular type of clitic-trace). It has been shown above that NPtraces are necessarily coindexed (non-indexing is disallowed), and we now want to
show that clitic-traces allow non-indexing (together with coindexing). If we assume
as above that co-indexing is necessary for the binding of empty anaphors, we reach
the conclusion that clitic-traces are not bound by their clitic-antecedent (see (121)d
and (122)d, which are not indexed). In other words, the proposed theory of
indexation leads us to the conclusion that the relation between the clitic and its trace
is not a binding relation. And this is consistent with the fact that clitic-traces do not
count as anaphors (they are not viewed as being subject to principle A), and
principle A is stated in terms of -positions exclusively. The question is why this
should be so: why do we not assume a "super-principle" A which would be
relevant not only for -positions, but also for A'-positions? Also, why do we not
assume a definition of empty anaphors that would subsume NP-traces and clitictraces? A principled reason in favour of the current theory, and against the
suggested generalization of binding theory can be found if we distinguish between
two relations that appear to be coalesced by the chain-formalism, namely a relation
between positions, and a relation between elements. Consider again the A-chain
characteristic of passives: it basically involves a relation between two positions, the
subject and object positions, as shown in (123). The relation between two elements
(an antecedent NP and an NP-trace) is a consequence of the relation between the
two positions, which is established (by virtue of the properties of the verb BE,
combined with the properties of past participles) independently of the nature of the
elements that instantiate these positions:
(123) ([NP, IP], [NP, V'])
Consider now clitic-chains. In this case no relation can be established between two
distinct positions independently of the elements that instantiate them: the A'position occupied by the clitic is not projected independendy of the presence of the
clitic. It thus appears that the relation between a clitic and its trace is a relation
between an element (the clitic) and the position occupied by its trace, rather than a
relation between positions. In other words, a clitic-chain does not function as a
relation between two positions, but rather as a discontinous element. The fact that a
clitic-chain is freely (as opposed to necessarily) assigned an index may be
interpreted as being due to the fact that a clitic-trace is licensed by the clitic in the
absence of any index, by virtue of the close relation that holds between the clitictrace and the clitic. Everything works as if clitics occupied the positions of their
traces. It is in fact reasonable to assume that insofar as they are A' chains, clitic
chains allow reconstruction at LF: clitics are reconstructed into the position of their
traces. The notation pro instead of (AGR, e) or (cl, e) captures the idea that one
(discontinuous) element is involved. Note also that the notion of "identification" is
currently used to refer to the relation between the clitic and its trace. The case of Achains is crucially different: the NP-antecedent and the NP-trace cannot be viewed
as a truly discontinous element, because the relation between them is first and
foremost a relation between two positions. Correlatively, there is no possibility to
refer to an -chain as a whole by using just one cover-term comparable to pro.
Correlatively again, the relation between the two elements of an -chain is not one
of identification, but one of binding.
To summarize, it has been shown that indexing convention (42)b (i.e., the
necessary assignment of indices inside -chains, and correlatively the prohibition
of non-indexing), need not be stated, but is due to the licensing of empty anaphors;
it does not apply to clitic-traces, which do not qualify as anaphors and may be
assumed to be licensed at LF, via reconstruction.
Let us finally consider the chains underlying passive se/si in Romance
languages. According to my analysis, the relevant chain is of the type (NP, se, e) or
(se, NP, e), with two overt [+N] categories, each of which is assigned a distinct
index by (118)a. For illustration, consider example (124):
Cette question s'est discut6e e hier.
this question se has discussed e yesterday
(125) a. Cette questionj/0 sj/0'est discutde e hier.
b. Cette questionj/0 sj/0'est discute ej/0 hier.
(124)
The indexed configuration in (125)a is due to convention (118)a: cette question and
se are assigned distinct indices, because these two elements are distinct [+N]
categories. The move from (125)a to (125)b is the result of an application of
(118)b: the empty category in object position necessarily inherits the index of the
object clitic that binds it. The question is now whether it is possible to pass from
(125)b to (126):
(126) (NPj, sej, ej)
The coindexation shown in (126) can be viewed as necessary: se is an overt
anaphor, which by definition is subject to principle A. But note that necessary as it
may be, any mechanism that allows us to go from (125)b to (126) does not obey
the indexing procedures assumed so far: in other words, the anaphoric status of se
runs against free indexing, and in fact leads us to delete some of the indices
assigned by applying free indexing. I am going to assume that representation (126)
cannot be correct, because index deletion and reindexing are powerful devices,
which should be avoided.
Procedures of index deletion and reindexing have already been proposed in the
literature, see in particular Higginbotham (1980), who deals with bound pronouns.
This quite drastic procedure can be avoided by assuming, following Chomsky
(1980), that lexical anaphors are assigned not referential but rather anaphoric
indices. The distinction between two types of indices allows us to distinguish
between two conceptually distinct relations: the relation between an empty category
and its antecedent (or, in derivational terms, the coindexation relation motivated by
movement) and the relation between a lexical anaphor and its antecedent.
Correlatively, empty categories (which lack any kind of intrinsic features) 64 are
kept distinct from lexical anaphors, which bear anaphoric intrinsic features which
do not associate with referential properties, but only indicate a relation to an
antecedent.
To the conventions in (118)a-b we should then add a specific procedure for
overt anaphors. Anaphoric indices,65 just like referential indices, are transmitted to
C-commanded empty categories. The indexing conventions in (118)a-b thus
become (127), to which I add the well-formedness condition on chains stated in
(128):
(127) a. Assign a referential index to overt [+N] categories.

b. Coindex anaphors: assign identical anaphoric indices to overt anaphors
and their antecedents.
c. Coindex empty categories: empty categories inherit the indices of their
antecedents.
(128) A th-chain contains identical indices.
Let us now consider again (125)b, which groups together two distinct possibilities,
set apart in (129)a-b:
(129) a. Cede questionj sj'est discute ej hier.
b. Cette qucstion0 s0'est discute qghier.
By adding anaphoric indices, represented by capitals, to (129)a-b we obtain the
kind of abstract representations shown in (130)a-b:
^Chomsky's theory of empty categories in terms of inherent features is a theoretical construct,
which does not supposer substantive inherent features for empty categories.
65
Although the distinction between referential and anaphoric indices is common to the various
theories of indexing (see Chomsky (1980), Higginbotham (1980), etc.), this distinction is used in
quite different ways. My "anaphoric indices" should thus be kept distinct from Chomsky's (1980)
notion, which notates disjoint reference. By assumption, Chomsky's anaphoric indices are
assigned exclusively to non-anaphors:
(i)
John knows him2/{ 1)
Within Chomsky's (1980) framework, it is the "referential" indices that notate coreference
(anaphors are assigned the same referential indices as the overt NP that immediately C-commands
them).
(130) a. (NPj/, sci/, /)

b. (0/, se0/K, e0/K)
The chain in (130)a presents identical anaphoric indices, but distinct referential
indices, which is illicit by virtue of (128). We are left with (130)b, which presents
anaphoric indices, but no referential indices (which is allowed by free indexing).
The non-assignment of referential indices thus appears to be necessarily triggered
(as a consequence of (128)) by the presence of a lexical anaphor inside a th-chain:
in the absence of lexical anaphors, two overt expressions do not appear inside the
same -chain, 66 and therefore no conflict of indices arises. Note that the presence
of lexical anaphors (se in particular) is also what makes non-indexing possible: in a
chain such as (NP, se, e) the antecedent of se is NP (no referential index is
necessary, because the relation of se to its antecedent is marked by the anaphoric
index); se is the antecedent of the empty category, and this relation does not need
(referential) indexing, because se is a clitic element. Note finally that anaphoric
indices cannot be assigned in the absence of lexical anaphors, and therefore in a
chain of the type (NP, e) the only indices that can be assigned are referential
indices; since indices are necessary for the licensing of the empty category, such a
chain will be necessarily assigned referential indices.
Let us now return to the relation between indexing and referential properties. It
is reasonable to assume that anaphoric indices do not count for the assignment of
referential properties: in the absence of referential indices, the chain in (130)b, or its
simplified form (, seK, ), is not assigned individuated reference. 67 This
66 A .
-chains do allow this possibility: cases in point are clitic doubling configurations, where the
doubled NP occupies either an -position or a left dislocation position (see Chapter 6 below).
These chains are currently interpreted in terms of individuated reference, which given the
assumptions adopted here may be taken to indicate that referential indices are assigned, and this
violates (128), since by virtue of (127)a, the clitic and the doubled NP must be contraindexed. We
may assume that index deletion and reindexing are allowed to apply in clitic chains: the clitic
necessarily imposes its index to the -position to which it is related; in case that position is filled
by an overt NP, the latter will have to take up the index of the clitic. This imposed indexation
probably relates to the fact that clitic-doubling chains not only allow the referential interpretation,
but also seem to be necessarily associated to iL
67
N o t e that given the proposed analysis, lexical anaphors give rise to different indexing
configurations, depending on chain-configuration: for the reasons discussed above, referential
indices are not assigned to the chains underlying middle/passive se configurations. Compare
reflexives:
(a)
Jean se lave e.
John se washes
(b)
Jeanj se; lave e
(c)
Jeanj/ sei/ lave e
(d)
Jeanj/ sei/ lave ej/
(e)
(Jeanj/) (sei/ ei/)
From (a) we obtain (b) by free contraindexing; (c) and (d) are the result of anaphoric coindexation
and coindexation of empty categories, respectively; (e) is obtained by a procedure that freely
assigns chain-structure (see Rizzi (1986b)): several -positions may belong to the same chain
provided only one of them is assigned a th-role. The indexing configuration in (e) does not violate
(128), because it involves two distinct th-chains, each of which contains identical indices.
explains why passive se is found in Romanian with (in)transitives, clausal

complements and idiomatic NPs. If our account is on the right track, it may also
lead to an explanation for the well-known, but poorly understood semantic
properties that distinguish passive se constructions from copula passives; see in
particular the generic interpretation (see les chemises en nylon se laventfacilement,
compare ?*les chemises en nylon sontlav6es facilement) and the peculiar aspectual
properties.
Appendix 2: On Case assignment in passives
In this chapter I have assumed Pollock's (1981,1983, 1986) analysis, according to
which the chain configuration underlying French il impersonal passives presents
two distinct chains, (il, AGR) and (NP). The hypothesis that il is not coindexed
with the postverbal subject cannot be reconciled with the idea that a Case transfer
mechanism operates between the subject and the object position. According to
Pollock, impersonal passives are able to assign Objective Case directly to the
postverbal NP. Note that if a transfer mechanism of Nominative Case were at work
in French impersonals, we would expect impersonal adjectival constructions to be
grammatical, contrary to fact:
(131) *I1 est intelligent un grand nombre d'61eves dans cette classe.
it is intelligent a large number of students in this class
The ungrammaticality of (131) is due to the fact that adjectives, unlike passivized
verbs, cannot assign Case.
The ability of passives to assign Case to the object NP is not restricted to
French, but can be observed in certain languages (see Ukrainian and Norwegian, as
described by Sobin (1985) and Afarli (1989)), as opposed to others (see Romance
languages or German). The crosslinguistic differences that characterize impersonal
passives (and in particular the contrast between French and the other Romance
languages) raise a double question:
(A)
(B)
Do passives necessarily absorb Objective Case?

What is the parameter that accounts for the crosslinguistic differences shown
by impersonal passives, and in particular their compatibility with objective
Case?
The two questions correlate. Thus, if we choose an affirmative answer to (A), we

must correlatively assume a parameter that states the number of structural Cases
assigned by a verb (see Jaeggli (1986a)). In French (as in Norwegian and
Ukrainian) a verb would be allowed to assign Case both to the passive morpheme
(and thus satisfy the requirement stated in an affirmative answer to (A)) and to the
NP that occupies the object position).
Let us next consider the hypothesis that a negative answer to (A) is correct. This
leaves open two possible answers to (B):
(C)
The absorbtion of abstract Case by the passive morpheme is obligatory in

certain languages (English, Romance languages, etc.), but optional in others
(French, Norwegian, etc.).
(D)
The crosslinguistic differences shown by impersonal passives (Case

properties included) derive from other parametric variations; no Case
parameter need be postulated for passives.
The hypothesis stated in (C), which can be found in Marantz (1984), Baker (1988)
and Afarli (1989), is in fact empirically indistinguishable from the one adopted by
Jaeggli (1986a). It is indeed difficult to see in what way one could verify whether
in French, Case is assigned both to the passive morpheme and to the postverbal NP
(as assumed by Jaeggli), or just to the latter (as proposed by Baker and Marantz).
The suggestion in (C) is also meant to capture the fact that in certain languages
passives can be constructed with (in)transitives. Note, however, that passive
(in)transitives and impersonal passives of the French type (where the postverbal
NP appears to bear a Case other than nominative) do not necessarily go together:
German allows the former, but not the latter construction. Therefore, it seems that
the two phenomena cannot be captured by one single parameter. Under Jaeggli's
hypothesis we must indeed assume a parameter specific of intransitives: in certain
languages (see German, as opposed to Romance languages other than French)
intransitives would be able to assign structural Case.
The hypothesis stated in (D) seems more interesting. It is indeed quite clear that
the difference between French and Romanian impersonal passives is a particular
case of the more general difference between impersonal constructions. French ilimpersonals can be used not only with passives, but also with unaccusatives and
passive se:
( 1 3 2 ) a.
II anivera
trois
personnes.
it will arrive three people

b. II s'est vendu beaucoup
de
livres.
it se has sold many books

In (132), just like in impersonal passives, the postverbal NP belongs to a chain of
its own, distinct from the expletive (il, AGR) chain. Given the Case Filter, this
means that the postverbal NP is assigned Case in situ. The French type of
impersonals is thus characterized by two correlated properties: the existence of two
distinct chains, and the direct assignment of Case to the postverbal NP. An
explanatory account of this construction must choose either the property regarding
the assignment of Case or the chain property as being fundamental, and derive the
remaining property. 68 Note that even if an approach in terms of Case could be
68
This question cannot be settled here. However, it seems plausible to think that it is the chain
property that is crucial: the existence of the type of chain configuration characteristic of French
impersonals may be due to the fact that in this language nominative Case is necessarily assigned
to the (NP, IP) position. If we assume that nominative Case cannot be transmitted to the (NP,V)
position, we derive the necessity of direct Case assignment to the (NP, V') position (see Appendix
2). In pro-drop Romance languages, nominative Case can be directly assigned to positions other
than (NP, IP), and therefore no expletive chain is needed. Thus, the chain property characteristic of
French impersonals can be derived from a condition on nominative Case assignment. To put it in
more intuitive terms, the existence of French impersonals is related to the fact that this language
lacks free subject inversion, which, to varying degrees, is available in the pro-drop Romance
languages. Note that the lack of free inversion is a necessary but not sufficient condition on the
implemented correctly, the ability of impersonal passives to assign Case to the (NP,
V') position would not be stated as a property of passives themselves, but rather as
a more comprehensive characteristic, which concerns all the structures characterized
by the non-assignment of the external th-role (see examples (132)a-b). It thus
appears that the Case properties of impersonal passives need not, and most
probably should not, be parametrized (they are either consequences of the Case
properties of impersonals or derive from the chain configuration characteristic of
impersonals).
It is not clear what the exact Case assigned to the (NP, V') position is in French
impersonal passives: we may consider that passives are allowed to assign objective
Case 69 (under this option Case absorption should not be stated as a characteristic of
passives); we may alternatively assume that passives absorb objective Case,
another Case being assigned to the (NP, V') position (see Belletti (1988)). I tend to
prefer the former hypothesis (in a number of languages morphological accusatives
are indeed allowed with passives), but the choice between the two possibilities is
not relevant here. What is relevant is the fact that the NP which occupies the direct
object position is the only member of its chain, and that Case (be it objective or
partitive) is assigned in that position .
existence of impersonals of the French type (see English, which lacks free inversion, but does not
present the relevant kind of impersonals).
^Recall that examples such comme il me l'a sugg6r6 'as there to me was suggested it' are
correct in French, with an Accusative clitic.
6. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification*
It is commonly assumed that the structures obtained by the rule of Wh-movement

count as quantification structures at the level of Logical Form. This correlation
between A'-movement and quantification1 correctly describes a large empirical
domain (which covers, besides relatives and interrogatives, other constructions
such as clefts, comparatives, infinitival relatives, and so on; see Chomsky (1977)).
However, the Government-Binding (GB) framework (Chomsky (1981)) contains
no theoretical principle that accounts for the above-mentioned correlation. We may
therefore think that the observed empirical correlation does not represent a
theoretical necessity, and we may expect -structures to differ across languages,
or inside the same language, depending on the choice between the
movement/nonmovement and the quantification/nonquantification strategies. This
abstract possibility is instantiated in Romanian: this language presents two types of
-structures, which both qualify as movement (they display island sensitivity, as
opposed to the resumptive pronoun strategy), yet differ with respect to
quantification properties.
I show that the difference between the Romanian type of w/j-structures (which
distinguish between movement and quantification) and the English type of whstructures (which do not distinguish between the two) follows from a different
setting of the "structural quantifier parameter", to be introduced below, which also
accounts for the absence (in Romanian) versus the presence (in English) of "null
operator" configurations.
Important revisions of the GB theory of quantification turn out to be necessary
for the analysis of wA-structures (Section 6.1), dislocated quantified expressions
(Section 6.2), and quantified expressions in situ (Section 6.3). I provide a new
account for certain systematic interpretive contrasts (the specific versus nonspecific
readings of indefinites and other quantified NPs; "wide" versus "narrow" scope)
that depend on clitic doubling.
Section 4 deals with the clitic doubling of indirect objects, which does not
exhibit the very strict constraints that govern the clitic doubling of direct objects. As
I show, this asymmetry derives from the difference between inherent and structural
Case.
Part of the material discussed in this chapter was presented at the 1985 GLOW Conference in
Brussels, and published in Dobrovie-Sorin (1985). The present version, considerably revised and
enlarged, benefited from the comments of A. Belletti, G. Cinque, A.Grosu, J. Guiron, O.
Jaeggli, J.C. Milner, L. Rizzi, I. Simatos and two anonymous reviewers for Linguistic Inquiry.
Special thanks go to R. Kayne; some important results presented here are answers to his
insightful remarks and questions. Much recent work on Logical Form (more particularly,
Hornstein (1984) and Williams (1986, 1988)) converges with the theory presented here. Space
constraints prevent me from comparing these approaches systematically.
^The Government-Binding framework dissociates these two relations, insofar as each of them
obeys distinct constraints: quantifier-variable configurations are subject to constraints on
quantifiers, on variables, and on the relation between the two; movement configurations on the
other hand are subject to locality conditions.
Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification 197
6. 1. Quantification and movement in wh-structures

6. 1. 1. Wh-structures
and the clitic doubling of direct
objects
6. 1. 1. 1. The distribution of clitics in Romanian wh-structures

Consider the following contrast between Romanian relatives and interrogatives:
(1)
a. (i)
(ii)
b. (i)
(ii)
(2)
a. (i)
(ii)
biatul pe care 1-am vzut

the boy pe which (I) him-have seen 2
'the boy that I saw'
cartea pe care am citit-c
the book pe which (I)have read it
'the book that I read'
* biatul pecare am vzut
the boy pe which (I) have seen
* cartea pe care am citit
the book pe which (I)have read
*Pecinel-ai
vzut7*
pe who him-have (you) seen
*Ce (roman) 1-ai
citit?
2pe is a "dummy" preposition comparable to a in Spanish (see Jaeggli (1982)); it precedes

(necessarily or optionally) certain direct objects. The distribution of pe will be examined in
Section 6.1.3.2.
3For reasons that are irrelevant here, the feminine clitic follows the verb in compound tenses.
^However, Sandfeld and Olsen (1936, 111-112) give some examples of this type, taken from
literary works written at the beginning of the century:
(i)
Pe cine 1-a mu$cat?
pe who him-has (he,she,it) bitten
'Whom has he/she/it bitten?'
These examples are considered to be substandard in modern Romanian (educated people would
probably never use them). Note also that even in those dialects that accept (i), the clitic is only
optional, as opposed to the obligatory presence of a clitic in care 'which' constructions. Thus, (i)
can be analyzed as an instance of the resumptive pronoun strategy, an analysis that cannot be
adopted for care configurations (see below).
Note however that examples like (ii) are probably preferred to examples like (iii):
(ii) Pe cine-1 doare capul?
pe whom-him aches the head
(iii) ?Pe cine doare capul?
pe whom aches the head
This type of example is characterized by the presence of a verb which takes an obligatory
accusative clitic that designates the Experiencer.
(iv) Nu-1 doaie capul pe biatul sta.
not-him aches the head pe this boy
'This boy doesn't care.'
(v) *Nu doaie capul (pe) biatul sta.
* Capul nu doare (pe) biatul sta.
It thus appears that the compulsory clitic in (ii) is not a doubling clitic, but rather one that can be
compared to inherent reflexives.
what (novel) it-have (you) read

Pecine ai
vzut?
pe who have (you) seen
(ii) Ce (roman) ai
citit?
what (novel) have (you) read
b. (i)
The contrast illustrated in these examples concerns the distribution of accusative

clitics: they are illicit in interrogatives (as in (2)), but obligatory in relatives (as in
(1)). This descriptive generalization can be made more precise: the distribution of
clitics is affected not by the relative versus interrogative status of (l)-(2) but by the
type of the wA-element itself: the interrogatives headed by cine5 'who', ce (N') 'what
(N')' contrast with the wA-structures headed by care 6 'which', relatives 7 and
interrogatives alike. This is shown in the examples in (3), which are parallel to (1)
and contrast with (2):
(3)
a. Pecare (biat) 1-ai

vzut?
pe which (boy) him-have (you) seen
'Which one (which boy) did you see?'
b. * Pecare (biat) ai
vzut?
Pe which (boy) have (you) seen
'Which one (which boy) did you see?'
The contrast between care 'which' and cine, ce 'who, what' is not an isolated fact but
is paradigmatic of Romanian wA-structures in general. With wA-phrases such as cip
'how many', a doubling accusative clitic is optional, but its presence or absence
correlates with an important semantic contrast. With pied-piped wA-phrases the
distribution of doubling clitics depends on the definiteness of the wA-moved
constituent. These observations will be illustrated in later sections.
Note that the obligatory clitic that shows up in (1) and (3) is not a resumptive
pronoun, as indicated by the fact that these wh-structures are sensitive to islands (cf
Steriade (1980)), just like cine structures:8
5
This pronoun is inflected for Case:
cine nom'who', cuiâi /gen'to
(accus 'whom').
^This pronoun is inflected for gender, number and Case:
whom',
pe cine'pe whom'
cruia^ /gen masc, creia^ /gen fem,
ciroradat/gen plur 'to which'; pe care 'pe which' (accus 'which').

7
For reasons we will not examine here, cine 'who' is not used (independently of whether a
doubling clitic is present or not) in Romanian headed relatives, but appears only in free relatives:
(i)
*biatul cine a vzut

the boy who has seen
(ii)
Cine ride la urm ride mai bine.
who laughs last laughs best

8
Note however that both care and cine constructions freely violate wh-islands:
(i) cartea asta pe care nu tiu cui m-ai rugat s-i spun s-o cumpere
this book pe which (I) don't know whomp a t (you) asked me that (I) tell-him to buy it
(ii)
Ce te intrebi dac trebuie s cumperi?
what (do you) wonder whether (you) must buy

These data are not surprising: movement out of wh-islands does not violate the Empty Category
Principle (ECP) (as does movement out of adverbials and complex NPs), but only subjacency (cf.
(4)
(5)
a. * Omulj pe carej cunosc femeiaj carej q lj-a ej a venit ien.

the manj pe whichj I know womanj whichi ei himj-has met ej came
yesterday
b. *biatuljpe carej am plecat inainte s-lj examineze ej Popescu
the boyj pe whichj (I) have left before that himj examine ej Popescu
a. *Pe cincj cunoti femeiaj carej ej a intilnitej ?
pe whoj (do you) know the womani whichj ei met ej
b. *Pe cinej ai plecat inainte s examineze ej Popescu 7
pe whoj did (you) leave before that examine ej Popescu
It thus appears that the two types of Romanian w/j-structures both qualify as
movement configurations. Any account of Romanian -structures has to answer
two questions: (a) What is the property that distinguishes the wft-elements that take
obligatory accusative clitics from those that preclude them? and (b) What parameter
is responsible for the presence of this particular type of w/i-structure (the one that
takes obligatory clitics) in Romanian as opposed to its absence in the other
Romance languages and in English?
6. 1. 1.2. Wh-structures and the clitic doubling parameter
Let us briefly review the already existing proposals (Steriade (1980), Aoun (1981),
Borer (1981, 1984)), which deal almost exclusively with question (b) and try to
relate the obligatory presence of accusative clitics in certain w/j-constructions to the
clitic doubling of direct and indirect objects, which is allowed in Romanian9 and
Spanish,10 as opposed to French and Italian:
Chomsky (1986)), and subjacency violations do not result in complete ungrammatically. The
well-formedness of (i-ii) thus cannot be advanced as an argument against a movement analysis of
Romanian wh-structures. Cinque (1984b, 1990) and Obenauer (1984-1985) have shown that
unlike standard wh-structures, the ones that violate islands present not a "standard" variable, but a
"pronominal variable" (i.e., an empty category that qualifies as pro and is bound by a quantifier).
Rizzi (1990) derives a similar conclusion independently, as a result of his "relativized
minimality" constraint (the distinction is stated differently, in terms of antecedent government vs
binding. The former relation connects elements which are not referentially indexed (in particular
variables and quantifiers), whereas the latter involves elements that bear referential indices).
Besides these general properties of Wh-island Constraint violations, I should note that in
Romanian they might not even count as subjacency violations because this language allows two
wh-elements to appear in S-initial position (see Comorovski (1986), who presents other
phenomena that depend on the possibility of (iii-iv)):
(iii) Cine ce a vzut?
who what has seen
(iv) Care pe care 1-a vzut?
which one pe which onei has seen himj
Given (iii) and (iv) Wh-island Constraint violations can be explained by assuming that wh-traces
are allowed to coexist with lexical wh-elements in Comp.
9A doubling clitic is optional or obligatory, depending on the type of complement (direct/indirect
object; +/-specific), and on certain semantic features of its head noun (+/-human). It is not my
(6)
(7)
a. L-am
vzutpelon.
him-(we) have seen pe John
'We saw John.'
b. /-am
dat crfi biatului.
him-(we) have given books boyj) at
'We gave books to the boy.1
a. *Nous l'avons vu Jean.
we him have seen John
b. *Nous lui avons des livres Jean.
we him have given some books to John
According to "Kayne's Generalization", the contrast between (6) and (7) does not
affect a unitary theory of cliticization. It depends only on the existence or absence of
a preposition able to assign Case to the doubled NP: a lexical NP object may be
doubled by a clitic only if the NP is preceded by a preposition. 11 In the GB
framework, this generalization can be derived from the Case Filter,12 as noted by
Jaeggli (1982). Like all nominal expressions, clitics need Case; they absorb the
Case assigned to the argument position. Hence, this Case is no longer available, and
a lexical NP in the direct object position is ruled out by the Case Filter.13 The
examples in (6) are grammatical, since the doubled NP is assigned Case by an
independent means: the preposition pe (compare a in Spanish) or morphological
Case (dative Case in Romanian).
There are two main possible types of S-Structure representation that we can
ascribe to clitic-doubling sequences:
aim to account for the entire paradigm of clitic doubling in Romanian (for a detailed presentation
of the data see Farkas (1978), Steriade (1980) and Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)).
l^For the clitic-doubling phenomenon in Spanish, see Jaeggli (1982), Hurtado (1984), Sufler
(1988). The clitic doubling of indirect objects is correct in both standard Spanish and River Plate
(R.P.) Spanish; the clitic doubling of direct objects is possible only in R.P. Spanish.
11
Note that this generalization should be reformulated in order to account for (6)b, where the
doubled NP is not assigned Case by a preposition, but presents morphological inflections for
dative Case. What seems to count is the fact that there exist explicit Case markers: these may be
prepositions or morphological Cases (see also accusatives in Greek, which are morphologically
marked and can be clitic-doubled). Note that Kayne's generalization does not explain why French
and Italian indirect objects (marked by or a) cannot be doubled (in formal speech). We can
assume that Romanian and Spanish, unlike French and Italian, allow for the double assignment
of dative Case (to the clitic and to the doubled NP). Stated in these terms, this suggestion merely
describes the data. A real explanation of this phenomenon should relate this difference to other
contrasts between the two groups of languages.
12
Following Vergnaud (1982), Chomsky (1981, 49) assumes that the Case filter rules out any
NP that has phonetic content and no Case.
^Following Aoun, I note that clitic-doubling chains show that the Case filter should be kept
distinct from the th-criterion, contrary to Chomsky's hypothesis that the Case filter is just a
visibility condition for th-role assignment. One Case position is sufficient for a th-chain to be
visible for th-assignment, but one Case position is not sufficient in (clj, NPj) chains, which
contain two nominal elements ; each of them must be marked for Case. French impersonal
passives constitute another case in point: their subject needs Case, although it is not part of a thchain (cf Pollock (1981)).

(8)
a. clj, (Prep) NPj

b. clj ej NPj
Borer (1981; 1984) assumes the schematic configuration given in (8)a, where
(Prep) NP occupies the -position of the direct object. Jaeggli (1986) provides
further evidence in favour of (8)a, which I will also adopt here. The S-Structure
representation given in (8)b-adopted by Aoun (1981) for River Plate Spanish. 14 is
based on the idea that in certain languages a clitic-doubled direct object occupies an
A'-position, the -position being taken by the clitic trace.
The question now is, What is the relation, if any, between clitic doubling and the
presence of clitics in certain w/i-structures? Both Borer and Aoun assume that the
representation of wA-structures is related to that of nonmovement structures; hence
(9)a and (9)b, corresponding to (8)a and (8)b, respectively: 15
(9)
a. w h j d j e j
b. whjcljejej
According to Borer, the abstract representation in (9a) is a well-formed

representation. The empirical generalization explicitly assumed by Borer is that
accusative clitics are allowed to "double" wh-traces in clitic-doubling languages;
Romanian care structures would constitute a case in point. But this generalization
can only be made at the cost of an important theoretical principle: Borer abandons
Chomsky's (1981) principle that variables bear Case. Unlike Borer, and following
essentially Jaeggli (1982), I will preserve Chomsky's (1981, 69, 102) definition of
variables, which I take to be the "null hypothesis":
(10 ) is a variable if and only if is an empty category that (a) occupies an Aposition, (b) is bound by a quantifier and (c) is Case-marked.
Âccording to Aoun's parametrized theory of clitic systems, River Plate Spanish accusative
clitics would be "R-clitics" (that is, clitics that are marked [+ Case, +th], which necessarily bind
an empty category in the argument position, the doubled NP occupying an A'-position, as in
(8)b), whereas Romanian accusative clitics would be "non-R clitics" (that is, clitics that are
marked [+Case, -th]), which may double an NP that occupies the -position of the direct object
(see (8)a). In what follows I will show that no difference need be postulated between the
Romanian and the Spanish clitic systems; hence (8)a can be taken to underlie both Romanian and
Spanish clitic-doubling structures.
15
This "derivational" analysis is not necessary in the GB framework. If we consider (8)a to be the
correct S-structure for clitic-doubling sequences, the "derivational" configuration of the
corresponding wh structures is identical with the "representational" one: the existence and the
position of the empty category in (9)a are imposed by the projection principle, independently of
the existence of the corresponding "non-movement" structure (8)a.The two approaches lead to
different results if (8)b is taken to be the correct representation for clitic-doubling sequences; on
this assumption, (9)b is a "derivational" representation, but it is not justified in a representational
framework: the second empty category is not required by any representational principle. In other
words, the structure given in (9)b is not available in a representational model. It is thus possible
to assume (8)b for clitic-doubling sequences, and (9)a, instead of (9)b, for the corresponding whstructures.
According to this definition of variables, a representation such as (9a) is illicit, by

virtue of the general condition against vacuous quantification: wh^ is a quantifier
that binds no variable at all (on the assumption that the clitic absorbs Case, the
empty category ej lacks Case).
I take (9a) to be the correct representation for (2)a(i) repeated as (ll)a. Given
that (9a) is an illicit configuration, the ungrammaticality of (11a) is directly
accounted for. By the same token, we have a straightforward explanation for the
grammaticality of (1 l)b, which differs from (11a) only by the absence of the clitic:
(11)
a.
*Pecinej
li-ai
vzutej?
pe whoi himi-have (you) seen ei

b
Pecinei
ai
vzutei?
In (1 l)b the empty category in the direct object position is a variable (it occupies an
-position and is marked for Case, since no clitic is there to absorb Case), and it is
correctly bound by cine.
The foregoing analysis of the distribution of clitics in ce/cine structures can be
summed up by the following empirical generalization, which derives without
stipulation from the general principles of the grammar: wh-variables cannot be
doubled by accusative clitics.16 Crucially, languages that admit clitic doubling are
nonetheless subject to this generalization.17
6. 1. 2. Romanian
wh-structures
that do not involve
quantification
Given this analysis of cine structures, the obligatory presence of clitics in care
structures forces us to the conclusion that care structures (and the other Romanian
w/j-structures that take obligatory accusative clitics) do not rely on quantification.
Independent evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from the facts concerning
weak crossover and parasitic gaps.
Consider the following weak crossover constructions:
(12) a.
*Pe cine^ a certat mama luij
ey?18
16
This generalization can be maintained even if one assumes Aoun's representation given in (9)b,
which we put aside on theoretical grounds: no element in (9)b satisfies the well-formedness
conditions on variables (the clitic trace has no Case and the second empty category occupies an
A'-position).
17
This is essentially Jaeggli's (1982) generalization, based on data from River Plate Spanish:
(i)
el hombre que/a quien vi
the man that / a whom (I) saw
(ii) *el hombre a quienj loj vi
the man a whom, (I) saw himi
18
An LI reviewer observes that (12)a improves when the clitic i-'him' is supplied (note however
that this doubling, marginally possible in colloquial speech, is not acceptable in standard
Romanian), but then the interpretation becomes identical to that of care questions: 'Which one did
you meet?', rather than "Whom did you meet?'. This remark does not invalidate our hypothesis,
(13)
pe whoi has scolded mother hisi ej

'Whoi did hisi mother scold ej?'
b. * Ce copilj arpedepsi prinpi luij ep.
what childi would punish parents hisi e j ?
a.
Pecarejlj-acertatmamaMjej?
pe whichj himj-has scolded mother hisj ej
'Which onej did hisj mother scold ej?'
b. Pe al cui e/evy /y nedreptpesc prietenii luij ej?
pe whose studentj himj wrong hisj friends ej?
'Whose studentj do hisj friends wrong ej?'
The examples in (12) illustrate a well-known descriptive generalization: a variable

cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun to its left (for quite different theoretical
accounts, see Chomsky (1976), Koopman and Sportiche (1982), Reinhart (1984)).
The well-formedness of (13) can only be accounted for by admitting that in these
examples the clitic trace ej is not a variable. 19 This conclusion converges with our
hypothesis, according to which examples like those in (13), unlike those in (12), do
not rely on quantification.
Now consider the following parasitic gap constructions:
(14)
(15)
a. Pe cinej ai apreciat ej inainte de a cunoafte ej?

pe whoi have (you) appreciated ei before knowing ei
b. Ce elevj ai apreciat q inainte de a cunoafte ej?
what studentj have (you) appreciated ej before knowing ej
a. *Pecarej lj-ai apreciat ej inainte de a cunoafte ej?
pe whichj himj-have (you) appreciated ei before knowing ei
b. *biatuljpe care lj-am apreciat ej inainte de a cunoapteej
the boyi pe whichi (I) himj appreciated ej before knowing ei
c. * Peal cui biatj lj-ai apreciat ej inainte de a cunoa$te ej?
pe whose boyj himj-have (you) appreciated ej before knowing ej
d. *profesorul pe al crui biati lj-ai apreciat ej inainte de a cunoate ej
the professor pe whose boyi himj (you) have appreciated ei before
knowing ej
Unlike the examples in (14), care structures (just like the pied-piping examples in
(15)c-d, which take obligatory accusative clitics) do not license parasitic gaps. This
according to which clitics are excluded from quantifier-variable configurations. When doubled by
a clitic, cine is necessarily reanalyzed as care (that is, as a non-quantifier), which accounts both for
the change in interpretation and for the lack of weak crossover effects.
19
An LI reviewer points out that strong crossover violations appear with both cine and care
structures. This does not constitute a problem for the proposed analysis, because "weak crossover"
violations are crucially different from "strong crossover" violations: the first are due to wellformedness constraints on variables, whereas the second can be analyzed as Principle C violations
on reconstructed representations (see Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)).
indicates that these examples contain no variable (since parasitic gaps are generally
licensed by a variable).20
To sum up, the following cluster of properties distinguish between two types of
Romanian wA-structures: (a) obligatory absence versus obligatory presence of
"doubling" accusative clitics; (b) weak crossover effects versus lack of weak
crossover effects; (c) licensing versus preclusion of parasitic gaps. Weak crossover
and parasitic gaps being diagnostic properties of quantification structures, the
inescapable conclusion is that some Romanian wA-structures do not rely on
quantification, in contrast to cine structures. This property converges with the
distribution of accusative clitics.
6. 1. 3. The quantifier status of wh-phrases
Our next task will be to understand this contrast. We will see that it derives from a
difference in the quantifier nature of the wA-phrase: some Romanian wA-phrases,
but not all of them, function as syntactic quantifiers.
Each of these notions can indeed be defined separately:
(16)
a. WA-phrases are XPs that dominate a wh-quantifier.

Wh-quantifiers belong to a morphosyntactic class (relative and
interrogative elements), which is semantically characterized (in the
lexicon) by intrinsic quantifier features.
b. Syntactic quantifiers are maximal projections that are marked with
quantification features (henceforth, qu-features) and appear in a specific
syntactic position, as in (c):
c. [XPi ] [S ...ei.]21
6. 1. 3. 1. The percolation of qu-features

WA-phrases are syntactic quantifiers by virtue of their position (see XPi in (16)c);
they are quantifiers by virtue of their quantifier features. But since they are maximal
projections, wA-phrases do not bear intrinsic quantifier features; they can only
In some languages parasitic gaps may be licensed by nominative pronouns bound to a whphrase (see Engdahl (1983) for Swedish); this is also true of dative clitics in Romanian. This
indicates that nominative pronouns (they may be either lexical pronouns or null elements
identified by Agreement features on the verb) and dative clitic chains may function as
"pronominal variables", unlike accusative clitics. A principled account of this difference will be
presented in Section 6.4.
2
^The configuration given in (16)c does not distinguish between (i) and (ii):
(0 fS'tXPi ] IS -ei...]]
(ii) fStXPi 1 fS ...ei..]]
Wh-configurations, which concern us here, are associated with (i), in which XPj is dominated by
Comp. In (ii) XPi appears in an adjunction position to S. This type of representation is generally
assumed for the level of Logical Form (LF), as a result of Quantifier Raising (QR); (ii) can also
be assumed to be an S-structure representation for quantified NPs that occupy left dislocated
positions (see Section 2).
Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification
205
inherit them from a lexical category, the wA-quantifier,22 which is generated in one
of two possible positions: under (Spec,N') or under NP. We must therefore assume
a mechanism of transmission of qu-features between lexical quantifiers and their
maximal projections. In what follows we will see that two factors are responsible
for this transmission: (a) the position in which the quantifier is generated and (b)
the lexical properties of the quantifier.
The contrast between the two types of Romanian wA-structures is in certain
cases due to the different positions in which wA-elements are generated. This can be
illustrated by the difference between care and cine.
Cine (just like who in English and qui in French) is a pro-NP element; that is, it
is exhaustively dominated by the NP node. This structural characteristic of cine has
important bearings on the quantifier status of the NP node that dominates cine: the
quantifier features that characterize the lexical element cine are attached to the NP
node that exhaustively dominates it; if in addition this NP occupies a "scope"
position (that is, the position of XPi in (16)c), it counts as a syntactic quantifier, and
as such it will have to bind a variable (by the condition against vacuous
quantification):
(17)
Pecinejaivzutei?
pe whomi have (you) seen ei

(17) is adequately represented by the LF representation given in (17'):
(17') for which , is a human, you saw
This LF representation indicates that the quantifying domain of cine is the class of
individuals that satisfy certain properties of the predicate (the class of individuals
"that have been seen by you").
Unlike cine, care may be used both as an adjective and as a pronoun:
(18)
a. Pecare
biatl-ai
vzutf
pe which boy him-have (you) seen

b. Pecare
1-ai
vzutl
pe which (one) him-have (you) seen

In (18)a care occupies the (Spec,N') node, the N' node being occupied by a nominal
head, biat In this example the sequence pe care biat 'pe which boy' behaves, with
respect to the distribution of clitics, just like the apparently "bare" pe care in both
interrogative and relative clauses (see (18)b and (1)): a clitic corresponding to the
extracted argument is necessarily present. I take this parallelism to be an indication
of a structural parallelism. I will therefore assume that the apparently bare care is
represented by [NptSpec.N' c a r e ] t N ' eH>23 o n a P 3 1 w i t h fNPtSpec.N' c a r e H N '
biat]] 'which boy'.
22
"Null operators", disregarded here, will be dealt with in Section 1.4.2.

23 As suggested by an LI reviewer, this is reminiscent of other cases of N'-deletion, such as la
prima N' 'the first N', quella JV"that N" in Italian.
Given the structural position of care, its quantifier features are attached to the
(Spec.N') node. The NP node that dominates care could acquire quantifier features
only if these features percolated from (Spec,N') up to NP. The obligatory presence
of an accusative clitic indicates that care N' does not function as a syntactic
quantifier, which in turn indicates that care does not transfer its features to its
maximal projection. In other words, care is a "restricted quantifier" (the restriction
is defined by N'); its domain of quantification is limited by the NP to which it
belongs. Care ranges not over the class of elements that can fill the A-position
characteristic of direct objects, but over the class of elements that satisfy the
referential properties defined by the lexical properties of N' (or of the antecedent of
[N1 e]): the class of boys in (18)a. According to this hypothesis, the LF
representations of (18)a-b are not of the type shown in (17'), but rather of the type
shown in (18'); in (18')b e is identified by its antecedent (the class of boys,
students, and so on):
(18') a [NPi for which , is a boy] yousawhimj
b [ for which , is e] you saw himi
The difference between cine and care is comparable to Cinque's (1986) distinction
between dislocated bare quantifiers, which necessarily bind a variable, and
"nonbare" quantifiers (or "quantified NPs"), which do not enter a quantifiervariable configuration. Note however that the dichotomy between bare and nonbare
quantifiers does not necessarily correlate with a contrast in quantifier status. It is
true that bare quantifiers are necessarily syntactic quantifiers, because their inherent
qu-features attach to the NP node itself; they present no restriction (that is, no N'
sister node), and therefore their domain of quantification cannot be restricted to the
NP to which they belong. It is however not the case that a nonbare quantifier
always functions as a syntactic "nonquantifier": the presence of a lexical item under
the N' node makes it possible for the quantifier under (Spec,N') to restrict its
domain to the NP, but it does not impose this restriction; nonbare quantifiers can be
restricted, but they are not necessarily restricted. In other words, NPs of the form
[NPtSpec.N' Q] N'] may or may not function as syntactic quantifiers, depending on
the percolation of qu-features: the wA-quantifiers generated under (Spec,N') are
lexically marked for a particular choice among the following three possibilities: (a)
the wA-quantifier necessarily transfers its wA-features to the dominating NP node,
which will thereby function as a quantifier, and the empty category it binds in S will
be a variable; (b) the wA-quantifier does not transfer its wA-features, with the result
that the dominating NP node does not function as a quantifier and cannot bind a
variable;24 (c) the wA-quantifier optionally transfers its wA-features, with the result
that the dominating NP node optionally functions as a quantifier and optionally
binds a variable.
These three possibilities all exist in Romanian: qu-feature transmission from
(Spec,N') to NP is obligatory, impossible, or optional, depending on the lexical
properties of the quantifiers themselves (feature transmission is also subject to
quantifiers referred to in points (a) and (b) are known as "weak" and "strong", respectively
(cf Milsark (1977) and Barwise and Cooper (1981)). According to the terminology used by these
authors, the quantifiers referred to in (c) are weak; I will show that in fact they may take either a
weak or a strong reading (see also Section 3 below).
207
locality conditions; see Section 6.1.3.2). The choice formulated in point (b)
characterizes care structures, as opposed to ce-structures:
(19) a. Ce elev ai putea tu suporta?
what student could you stand
b. *Ce elev 1-ai putea tu suporti
(19)a is characterized by the presence of a syntactic variable (the empty category in
the direct object position is marked for Case), which must be bound by a quantifier,
since (19)a is grammatical, we must assume that ce elev 'what student1 counts as a
syntactic quantifier. The ungrammaticality of (19)b can be attributed to vacuous
quantification: ce elev has no variable to bind (in the presence of the clitic no licit
variable is available in S). The ungrammaticality of (19)b thus indicates that ce
'what', a nonbare quantifier, is characterized by the option (a): ce necessarily
transfers its qu-features to the dominating NP. This contrast between two nonbare
quantifiers, care (N') and ce (N'), shows that the contrast between syntactic and
nonsyntactic quantifiers is not only structural (bare versus nonbare) but also lexical.
The contrast in the distribution of clitics correlates with a systematic semantic
difference between ce TV'and care N': care structures can be used only if a certain
set of students has already been mentioned or is implicit in a given dialogue; cestructures suppose no such shared knowledge between the two speakers. This
semantic difference can be derived from the difference between the LF
representations given in (18') and (19'):
(19') for what x , x a student, you could stand
According to (18'), care does not bind a variable in S but has a quantifying domain
restricted to the class of elements defined by the nominal head. In other words, the
quantifying domain is independent of the sentence in which the quantified NP is
used. On the other hand, the representation given in (19') indicates that ce does bind
a variable in S: the quantifying domain of ce (Nf) is defined both by the lexical
properties of N' (or its antecedent) and by the properties of the rest of the
sentence.2^
difference in LF representation is associated with a well-known difference in pragmatic
meaning: in (18), but not in (19), the set of elements defined by the nominal head is
pragmatically interpreted as constituting "shared knowledge" among the dialogue protagonists
(see Pesetsky's (1987) distinction between "discourse-linked" and "discourse-free" wh-elements,
which is comparable to Kripke's (1977) distinction between presence and absence of "pragmatic
reference"). Like Pesetsky, and unlike Kripke, I believe that this distinction is semantic, and not
pragmatic. The difference in pragmatic meaning (discourse "linking" or "freedom") can indeed be
derived as a consequence of the difference between the two types of LF configurations given in
(18') and (19'), which are themselves due to the different semantic properties of care and ce
respectively. The LF representation given in (19') does not allow for any set of elements to be
defined independently of the sentence in which the quantifier is used. In (18'), on the other hand,
the quantifier ranges over a set of boys, independently of the rest of the sentence; since it does not
depend on the rest of the sentence, this domain of quantification can be restricted -must be, as a
matter of fact, because natural languages tend to restrict domains of quantification as much as
possible -only by the pragmatic context (the information that constitutes "shared knowledge"
between speaker and hearer). To sum up, certain "restricted" (or "strong") wh-elements (the which
Let us now turn to the third type of w/i-quantifiers mentioned in point (c), which
is also instantiated in Romanian:
(20)
a. Cip studenp ai examinat?

how many students have (you) examined
b. Pe cip studenp i-ai examinat?
pe how many students them-have (you) examined
The clitic is optionally present in (20), which indicates that cip' 'how many'
optionally transfers its qu-features to the dominating NP: a quantification
configuration underlies (20)a, but not (20)b. The difference in quantification
properties that we assume between (20)a and (20)b correlates again with a semantic
contrast: (20)a asks a question about the number of individuals who are students
(no particular set of students is presupposed) and who have been examined by the
addressee; on the other hand, (20)b is a question concerning a subset of students,
included in a larger set, which constitutes shared knowledge between speaker and
hearer.
6. 1. 3. 2. The locality of feature percolation
Consider next the following contrasts:
(21)
(22)
a. Ce elev ai putea tu suporta ?

what student could you stand
b. ??Pe ce elev ai putea tu suporta ?
pe what student could you stand
a. C?p elevi ai putea tu suporta?
how many students could you stand
b. *Pe tip elevi ai putea tu suporta?
pe how many students could you stand
The examples in (21)a and (22)a are grammatical: [NP ce elev] and [NP ci{i elevi]
are quantifiers (by inheritance of qu-features) that correctly bind variables in the
direct object position. The ungrammaticality of (21)b and (22)b indicates that pe ce
elev and pe cip elevi do not correctly identify the variable; in other words, they do
not count as quantifiers. Their nonquantifier status is obviously not due to their
lexical properties, since (21)a and (22)a are correct, but may be triggered by the
presence of the preposition pe. It is then tempting to treat (21)b and (22)b as
violations of a locality constraint on feature percolation: [pp pe [NP ce elev]] is not
a licit quantifier, because pe blocks the percolation of qu-features from ce up to the
dominating PP. More precisely, the dummy preposition pe does not L-mark NP,
which therefore functions as a barrier (see Chomsky (1986)), which blocks the
percolation of qu-features.
Note that pe does not block the transmission of qu-features in (23):
type) are pragmatically interpreted as being "discourse-linked", whereas "unrestricted" (or "weak")
wh-elements (the who type) are pragmatically interpreted as being "discourse-free".
(23) Pe cine ai invitat?

'pe who have (you) invited
In this case the lexical quantifier cine is exhaustively dominated by NP: hence, there
is no barrier that could block the transmission of qu-features up to [pp pe [NP
cine]].
The examples in (24) and (25) show that pe is compulsory in wA-structures that
take obligatory clitics:
(24) a. Pe care elev 1-ai intilnit?
pe which student him-have (you) met
b. Pe ci(i elevi i-ai examinat?
pe how many students them-have (you) examined
(25) a. VCare elev 1-ai intilnit?
which student him-have (you) met
b. ?? dp elevi i-ai examinat?
how many students them-have (you) examined
Let us assume that wA-phrases are subject to the Case Filter, like any other NP. As
they occupy an A'-position, wA-phrases cannot be assigned structural Case, but
they may acquire it by one of the following mechanisms: (a) Case can be shared by
a variable and the quantifier that binds it; (b) a dummy Case marker (the preposition
pe, for instance) can be inserted. The first possibility applies in quantifier-variable
configurations, which explains why pe is not needed in front of ce TV'or cijfr N' (see
(21)a and (22)a); the impossibility of pe in the same contexts was shown to be due
to locality conditions on the percolation of qu-features. Since in (25)a-b accusative
Case is "absorbed" by the clitic, it cannot be transmitted to the wA-phrase; pe is
therefore necessarily inserted.26
If these principles are on the right track, we might be able to derive the definition
of variables in terms of Case from the Case Filter on wA-phrases. A further
interesting outcome can be noted: the correlation between clitic doubling and the
possibility of nonresumptive clitics bound by wA-phrases need not be stipulated but
could be accounted for by the fact that both phenomena depend on the existence of
an accusative marker (Kayne's Generalization would apply not only to the clitic
doubling of NPs that occupy -positions but also to the clitic doubling of whphrases).
To sum up, I have shown that the contrast between the two types of Romanian
wA-structures is due to the different quantification features of the wA-phrases that
the following example, however
Care cartej ai citit-oj?
which book; have (you) read-it;?
In this example pe is excluded, because carte is inanimate (pe is fully grammatical only with
human referents, marginal with nonhuman animates). For some speakers, examples like (i) are
marginal, or even ungrammatical, by virtue of violating the Case filter. For other speakers such
examples are acceptable, probably by virtue of a default Case assignment used as a "last recourse"
mechanism. A default Case assignment is independently needed for left-dislocated NPs:
(ii) (Pe) elevii ti nu i-am vzut de lun.
(pe) your students (I) haven't them-seen for a month.
^^Consider
. (i)
head them.27 In Sections 6.2 and 6.3 I will show that the principles proposed here
also account for certain constraints to which the clitic doubling of quantified NPs in
situ is subject.
6. 1. 4. Wh-structures and quantification: lexical wh-phrases versus structural
quantifiers
6. 1.4. 1. Equivalents of care in other languages
Let us assume that the principles of the quantification theory proposed above do not
constitute a parametrized option characteristic of Romanian but instead belong to the
general principles of language. 28 We would then expect systematic syntactic
27
According to Steriade's (1980) account, Romanian wh-traces are replaced by pronominal copies
(similar to Perlmutter's (1972) "shadow pronouns") that inherit the [+/-specific] features of the
moved constituent. Granting this assumption, the distribution of clitics in wh-structures is
predictable entirely from the conditions under which pronominal objects may or must reduplicate;
more precisely, the contrast between the two types of wh-structures comes down to the contrast
between specific vs nonspecific pronouns, which respectively require and exclude clitic doubling.
Within Steriade's approach, the correlation between specificity and clitic doubling is stated as a
primitive, and left unexplained. It is my intent to explain it, or rather the more general correlation
between the distribution of clitics and quantification structures:
(i)
a. Nu (*l)-am vSzutpe nimeni.
not (*him) [I] have seen pe nobody
b. Ion (*l)-a indlnit pe cineva.
John (*him)-has met pe somebody
The exclusion of the clitic in (i) is parallel to the exclusion of clitics in cine structures and the
other wh-structures that behave in the same way. This parallelism between wh-structures and the
in situ cases of quantification does not oblige us to derive one paradigm from the other. It is
instead possible to show that both configurations are governed by the same principles of
quantification theory (see Section 3).
Within Steriade's account the parallelism between the clitics that "double" wh-traces and the
clitics that double pronominal NPs in situ is stipulated in order to account for the fact that in whstructures the clitic is obligatory (as it is for pronominal NPs in -positions (see the examples in
(ii)-(iii)), whereas the doubling of specific NPs other than pronominal is optional (see (iv-v)):
(ii) Ion 1-a examinat pe el.
John him-has examined pe him"
(iii) *Ion a examinat pe el.
John has examined pe him
(iv) Ion 1-a examinat pe vecin.
John him-has examined pe neighbour"
(v) Ion a examinat vecinul.
John has examined the neighbour".
The pronominal versus nonpronominal contrast illustrated in (iii) and (v) is irrelevant within our
approach. We can nonetheless explain the difference between the obligatory presence of clitics in
care structures (cf (1)) versus their optionality with specific NPs in situ (cf (iv)-(v)), by bringing
into play the different positions (A'-versus -position) occupied by the doubled NP (see Section
6.3.3).
28
According to a quite natural, generally accepted assumption, semantic properties are universal.
That is why, on conceptual grounds, we do not want to stipulate semantic differences between the
asymmetries between wh-structures, comparable to the ones pointed out for

Romanian. There are indeed number of well-known asymmetries between which
which one and whom/what (TV), when these wA-phrases stay in situ:
(26) a.
b.
c.
d.
Who. did you persuade e^ to read what?

?? What- did you persuade whom to read e^?
Mary asked [who- [e read what]].
*Mary asked [ what- [ who read e^]].
(27) a.
b.
c.
d.
Which man. did you persuade e to read which book?

Which book did you persuade which man to read e. ?
Mary asked [which man. [e. read which book]].
Mary asked [which book, [which man read e^]].
The ungrammatically of (26)b,d. which contrasts with the grammaticality of

(26)a,c, illustrates a Superiority Effect violation (see Chomsky (1973)). Pesetsky
(1987) accounts for the well-formedness of (27)b,d by assuming that, unlike what,
which book was not moved by Quantifier Raising (QR). Since by definition QR
applies to quantifiers, Pesetsky's proposal can be reformulated as a hypothesis
concerning the quantifier status of wA-phrases in situ. The asymmetry between
what/who and which (similar asymmetries exist in Romance languages other than
Romanian) is thus comparable to the difference between ce/cine and care that we
assumed for Romanian: what (Nf) and who function as quantifiers, which N' does
not.
However, relatives and interrogatives headed by which (the same is true of quel
N' in French, cul N' in Spanish, and so on) do not contrast with the ones headed
by who: both these types of wA-structures qualify as quantification structures with
respect to weak crossover effects, parasitic gaps, and the distribution of clitic
pronouns bound to the wA-phrase. The different behaviour of which in S-initial
positions can be accounted for by assuming a "structural" definition of quantifiers
(see Cinque (1986) for a similar idea):
(28) NPs in (Spec,C')29 function as quantifiers.30
Romanian care (and the other wh-elements that take obligatory clitics) and its equivalents in other
languages (at least in those languages where pairs such as who, what (N1) versus which (N') exist).
29i assume the internal structure of the Comp node proposed in Chomsky (1986); S' is the
maximal projection of Comp (hence labeled CP (Complementizer Phrase)), which is rewritten as
in (i); S, taken to be the maximal projection of Infi, is symbolized by IP:
(0
CP = [Spec.C'lC'C IP]]
The head position C of CP hosts complementizers like that and que; the (Spec,C) slot is filled
by wh-phrases.
3 0 A s A. Belletti and L. Rizzi note (personal communication), any principle like (28) should be
adequately qualified in order not to extend to verb-second languages, where it is clearly not the
case that any NP in (Spec,C') acquires a quantifier status. We might therefore be forced to restrict
This definition is structural, since it is the position of an element, and not its
intrinsic features, that defines its quantifier status. The lexical difference between
which and who can be detected when these elements stay in situ, because in this
case their lexical features are alone responsible for their quantifier status; when they
are in (Spec,C'), the difference between which and who is neutralized by virtue of
(28), which attributes a quantifier status to whatever element appears in (Spec,C').
(28) accounts for the well-known discrepancy between S-Structure and LF
representations that characterizes pied-piped structures:
(29)
a. [Whose daughter]j did (you) see ei?

b. for which , a person, you saw [x's daughter]
The LF representation given in (29)b indicates that the pied-piped constituent

whose daughter does not have the status of a quantifier and correlatively the whtrace does not qualify as a variable. This LF representation directly follows from
our principles concerning the percolation of qu-features: the gu-features, marked on
the NP that immediately dominates whose, cannot percolate to the upper NP that
dominates [ N P t N P ^ o s e ] daughter]. However, the S-Structure representation
given in (29)a is characterized by the presence of a syntactic variable (ei is an empty
category that is marked for Case and occupies an -position), which must be
bound by a quantifier. This quantifier-variable configuration is licit by virtue of
(28): at S-Structure whose daughter counts as a quantifier, despite its lack of gufeatures.
Let us now come back to Romanian. In contrast to which and quel, care does not
function as a quantifier, even when it occupies an S-initial position. Similarly, piedpiped constituents such as pea cui fat, pe a crui fat 'whose daughter' do not
license variables; hence the obligatory presence of an accusative clitic 31 (which
correlates with absence of weak crossover effects and preclusion of parasitic gaps):
(30) a. Pe a cui fat ai vzut-o?
pe whose daughter have (you) seen-her
b. vecinul pe a crui fat am vzut-o ieri
the neighbor pe whose daughter (I) have seen-her yesterday
The contrast between these Romanian wA-structures and their counterparts in the
other Romance languages (and in English) can be accounted for by assuming that
Romanian wA-phrases are not affected by (28). An even more interesting
generalization can be formulated:
(31)
Romanian does not show any effect of (28).
(28) to wh-phrases and empty categories (see also footnote 33, where a reformualtion of (28) is
suggested).
31
In (i) the pied-piped constituent is indefinite and therefore may function as a quantifier (see
Sections 2 and 3 below). This accounts for the absence of the clitic:
(i)
Ion, strmofi ai cruia incercasem in zadar s gsesc
John, ancestors of whom (I) had tried in vain to find

In what follows I will provide important independent evidence in favour of (28)
and (31), which may be viewed as two distinct values of the same parameter, which
I will refer to as the structural quantifier
parameter?!
6. 1.4. 2. The lack of null operators in Romanian

Quite obviously, a "null" operator is not marked with intrinsic gu-features; its
quantifier status is due exclusively to its position in (Spec,C'). It is then natural to
assume that the existence of null operators depends on the positive value of the
structural quantifier parameter. 3 3 This in turn predicts that a language like
Romanian, characterized negatively with respect to this parameter, will lack null
operator configurations such as i/iaf-relatives, clefts, topicalization, focus-movement
at LF, infinitival relatives, and tough-movement, 3 4 a prediction that turns out to be
correct. I will illustrate this point through a discussion of that relatives and clefts.
For the other constructions, I refer the reader to Dobrovie-Sorin (1987).
Romanian presents different complementizers corresponding to the English that
c is used in declaratives, ca and s in subjunctives. 3 5 None of these elements can
show up in relatives, 3 6 as expected: that-relatives contain a variable bound to an
empty quantifier, 3 7 but Romanian presents no empty quantifier (because (28) is
negatively specified in Romanian).
3
^More interestingly, one might try to render the behaviour of Romanian compatible with (28)
by assuming that in this language wh-phrases do not occupy the (Spec.C') position (the slot
characteristic of left dislocations might be invoked instead). This hypothesis is supported by
evidence concerning the constituent structure of S and S' in Romanian (see Dobrovie-Sorin
(1987)).
33
An LI reviewer suggests an alternative formulation of the parameter (28)/(31), stated directly in
terms of "null operators": Romanian would lack them, as opposed to the other Romance
languages. On this hypothesis, the apparent quantifier behaviour of which, quel, cul, quale
would follow from their ability to coexist with a null operator in Comp, an ability that their
Romanian counterpart does not share. As far as the data analyzed here are concerned, the two
alternative parameters seem to be equivalent.
^Comparatives are not relevant in the present connection, because they do not involve the
movement of direct objects, which alone concerns us here. Besides, Romanian comparatives
involve not a null operator, but a lexical one (which as such normally binds variables), decit
'than' (lit. 'of-how much').
35
On the distribution of ca and s, see Dobrovie-Sorin (1987).
36
Note that the Romanian counterparts of that relatives do not become grammatical even if
supplied with an accusative clitic. This impossibility is not completely clear to me. A way is
needed to rule out two distinct possibilities: (a) a resumptive pronoun strategy and (b) a
"movement" strategy comparable to care configurations. A promising line of inquiry may work
out the hypothesis that the Comp node is not involved in Romanian relatives, which could be
derived from the particular sentence structure of Romanian.
Âccording to the derivational analysis, that relatives are obtained by the deletion of the whelement in Comp; the empty category resulting from deletion is assigned a quantifier status at
LF, which ensures the correct binding of the variable in S. This analysis can be restated in
representational terms. According to the X' theory proposed in Chomsky (1986), two slots are
available in Comp, so that an empty category can be generated under (Spec.C), even if the head
Consider now the example given in (32):

(32)
Cci moneagul cej priveti ej nu e om de iind.
for the old man whati (you) look at ei is not and ordinary man
'For the old man you are looking at is not a ordinary person.'
This type of relative, headed by ce 'what', is a marked construction, which does not
belong to the core grammar of contemporary Romanian: it is little productive (the
example under (32) is a literary quotation; ce relatives are somewhat more frequent
with non-human antecedents), and presents a number of idiosyncratic properties.38
The absence of an accusative clitic 39 indicates that the ce-relative in (32) is a
quantifier-variable structure. Two different hypotheses are compatible with this
idea: (a) ce is a lexical quantifier, as suggest! by its lexical identity; (b) ce is a
complementizer of the that-type (cf. Horvath and Grosu (1987) and Horvath and
Grosu (1987)). I will not try to choose between these two possibilities; in terms of
either of them ce-relatives are analysed as quantifier-variable configurations, and
this explains why they do not take obligatory accusative clitics. Ce relatives would
thus appear to fit well into the proposed analysis of the distribution of clitics in whstructures. However, if they were to be analysed as thai-relatives, we would have to
admit that null operators exist in peripheral areas of Romanian.
The lack of clefts 4 0 is another outstanding characteristic of Romanian, which
constitutes independent evidence in favour of the proposed analysis of care
position C is filled with lexical complementizers, as in i/iai-relatives. By (28) the empty category
generated in (Spec,') acquires quantifier status.
38
Ce-relatives take optional clitics in "short wh-movement" configurations (see (i)), and
obligatory clitics in "long wh-movement" (see (ii)-(iii)) and "parasitic gap" configurations (see
(iv)). (examples (i)-(iii) are from Sandfeld and Olsen (1936,112).)
(i)
cartea ce ai citit-(o) ...
the book what [you] have read (it)
(ii) ui inel ce zicea c *(il) are dela mo$i
a ring what (he) said that (he) has *(it) from elders
(iii) nifte nofe ce am Infeles dela d-1 Ionescu c *(le) posedaji
some notes what 0) understood from Mr Ionescu that (you) possess *(them)
(iv) mogneagul ce privegti fr a-*(l) necunoafle
the old man what (you) look at without to recognizing *(him)
The ungrammaticality of (ii-iv) cannot be due to any constraint on wh-movement in general,
because the corresponding interrogative sentences arc correct, and the clitic is necessarily absent:
(v) Ce zicea c are delamo$i?
what (did he) say that (he) had from (his) elders?
We must then admit that the ungrammaticality of (ii-iv) is idiosyncratic; that is, it is not
derivable from the general principles of language (or from any parametrized option characteristic
of Romanian).
39
Quite clearly, the accusative clitics that may show up in ce-relatives (see footnote 38) should be
analyzed not as the obligatory clitics characteristic of care structures but rather as resumptives.
Resumptives are indeed found in two different types of contexts: (a) they may optionally appear
instead of a variable; (b) they are used in contexts in which variables are illicit (for instance, by
virtue of the island constraints). The first case is illustrated by (i) of footnote 38, and the second
by (ii-iv), in which a constraint other than islandhood must be invoked.
4^The meaning of clefts can be expressed in Romanian by "pseudoclefts":
structures. Compare the ungrammaticality of (33)a-c with the grammaticality of the

English glosses:
(33)
a. *Epe Ion c am vzut.

it's John that I saw
b. *E lui Ion c i-am sens saisoare.
it's to John that I wrote a letter
c.
*EcuIoncamplecat
it's with John that I left

Consider next the ungrammaticality of (34)a-b, which is parallel to the impossibility
of care relatives that lack clitics: it is directly accounted for by the intrinsic lexical
properties of care, correlated with the idea that Romanian lacks structural
quantifiers:
(34)
a. *E Ion pe care am vzut

(it) is John pe which (I) have seen
b. *E romanul sta pe care am citit ieri.
(it) is novel this pe which (I) have read yesterday
The ungrammaticality of (35)a-b, where a clitic is supplied, is somewhat surprising,

given the grammaticality of care relatives:
(35)
a. *E Ion pe care 1-am vzut

b. *E romanul sta pe care 1-am citit ieri.41
These examples indicate that a quantifier-variable configuration is necessary in

Romanian for clefts, 42 as opposed to relatives.
(i)
Cel pe care 1-am vzut ieri e Ion.

The one pe which him-(I) saw yesterday is John
(ii) Cel care a plecat primul e Ion.
The one which left first is John
(iii) Cel cu care ay pleca la mare e Ion.
The one with which I'd go to the seaside is John
The impossibility of care-clefts extends to the other syntactic positions:
(i)
*E Ion care a plecat ieri.
it's John which left yesterday'
(ii) *E Ion cu care am plecat.
it's John with which (I) left'.
42
0 n e may then ask why ce cannot be used; compare the (marginal) acceptability of ce-relatives
to the utter ungrammaticality of (i,ii):
(i)
*E Ion ce am vzut.
(it) is John what (I) have seen
(ii) *E cartea asta ce am citit ieri.
(it) is this book what (I) have read yesterday
We may argue that because of its marked character, the mechanism underlying ce relatives is
limited to this particular construction. It may also turn out that clefts necessarily involve null
operators. The exclusion of (i) and (ii) would then constitute an argument in favour of the idea
that ce relatives are not equivalent to that relatives.

6. 1 . 4 . 3. Romanian relatives versus River Plate Spanish relatives
W e are now in a position to explain an important contrast between Romanian and
River Plate Spanish. Though these languages both admit the clitic doubling of direct
objects, they differ with respect to the distribution of clitics in care/cul structures.
B y our analysis care configurations do not rely on quantifier-variable structures,
and this explains the obligatory presence of the clitic, discussed above. Cul
structures are clearly not subsumed by this analysis, which indicates that clitic
doubling cannot be a sufficient condition for the presence of doubling clitics in whstructures. (Example (36) is from Suner (1988).)
(36)
*A cules pasajeras las rescataron ?

which passengers did they rescue 4 3
The ungrammaticality of (36) is parallel to that observed in which

/quel
configurations: despite its intrinsic lexical features, cul acquires a quantifier status
(when it appears in (Spec,C')), by virtue of the structural quantifier parameter. 44
This analysis is supported by the fact that River Plate Spanish also presents that-
43
The contrast between (36) and (l)a is a true minimal pair, unlike the contrast between (l)a and
(i)-(,ii), which is frequently, but misleadingly quoted:
(i)
el hombre que/a quien vi
the man that / a whom (I) saw'
(ii) * el hombre a quien lo vi
the man a whom (I) saw him'
Examples (i)-(ii) are that-lype relatives (or iv/io-type relatives; compare a quien, which is
marginally acceptable in (i), instead of que), relying on a quantifier-variable configuration. As
discussed in the preceding sections, the paradigm (i)-(ii) is as a matter of fact parallel to
Romanian interrogatives in cine/ ce (the ungrammaticality of (ii) and (iii) is due to vacuous
quantification):
(iii) Pe cine (*l)-ai indlnit?
pe whom did you meet (*him)
^Sufier (1988) gives the following grammatical examples, in which interrogative partitives are
clitic-doubled:
(i)
cul de las dos candidatasj laj entrevistaron?
which of the two candidatesj (did they) interview herj?'
(ii) cules de ellosj losj interrogaron?
which of them; (did they) question themj?'
(iii) A cuantas de las actricesj lasj reconocieron?
how many of the actresses, (did they) recognize themj?'
Sufler considers that the contrast between the ungrammaticality of (36) and the acceptability of (iiii) is due to the fact that partitives are +specific, whereas NPs of the wh N' form are -specific. It
is however difficult to assume intrinsic nonspecificity for cul '. According to our analysis, the
acceptability of (i)-(iii) is due to the fact that the "structural quantifier" parameter does not
necessarily operate for partitives, whereas it does for wh N's independently of their intrinsic
quantification features. One might suggest that, unlike other wh-phrases, Spanish partitives are
allowed to stay out of the (Spec, C') position (the examples under (i)-(iii) would then be
assimilated to left dislocations,; see Section 2).

type relatives, as well as the other configurations analyzed in terms of null
operators. 45 Under our analysis, the difference between Romanian and River Plate
Spanish is just a particular aspect of the more general contrast that sets Romanian
apart from English and from the other Romance languages, be they clitic-doubling
languages or not.
To sum up, I have proposed a theory according to which wA-phrases are not
necessarily syntactic quantifiers; depending on the percolation of wA-features, they
may function either as N P s or as quantifiers. This amounts to saying that whstructures may rely on two different types of Move a , which need not be stated as
independent rules; their different properties depend on the nature of itself: (a)
Move NP to an A'-position; 4 6 (b) Move w/j-quantifiers. Rule (b) qualifies both as a
45
According to our account, the contrast between Romanian and Spanish derives from the
mechanism that underlies wh-structures. On this point our analysis is close to Steriade's (1980)
pre-GB proposal, stated as a stipulation: Unlike Romanian, River Plate Spanish wh-structures
involve, not pronominal copies of the extracted constituent, but just empty variables. If our
analysis is correct, this stipulated difference between the Romanian and Spanish types of whmovement depends on two different values of the structural quantifier parameter, which is
independently motivated (see the discussion of null operator constructions).
Steriade's correct intuition got lost in both Aoun's (1981; 1985) and Borer's (1981; 1984)
analyses of the contrast between Romanian and Spanish. Borer considers that the presence of
clitics in wh-structures is the unmarked situation for a clitic-doubling language (see Section 1.1.2
above): wh-variables would be properly governed by doubling clitics. Romanian is taken to
illustrate this generalization, but the River Plate Spanish data constitute a problem. Borer solves
it by assuming that clitics function as proper governers only if they bear the same Case as the
empty category they are supposed to govern. This requirement would be satisfied in Romanian,
but not in Spanish, the relevant parameter being a difference in the Cases assigned to
"prepositional accusatives": Romanian pe would assign the accusative, whereas Spanish a could
only assign the dative (besides being an accusative marker, a is indeed the preposition
characteristic of indirect objects). Spanish clitic-doubling sequences would then be characterized
by a Case discrepancy between the accusative clitic and the doubled NP, which would be dative.
Because of the Case harmony requirement imposed on clitic government, an accusative clitic
would not be able to properly govern the (supposedly dative) variable left behind by the whmovement of the a NP, hence the exclusion of accusative clitics in Spanish wh-structures. Jaeggli
(1986) shows that direct objects preceded by a are not dative, which invalidates most of Borer's
explanation.
According to Aoun the contrast between Romanian and River Plate Spanish would depend
on two different choices from among four possible types of clitic pronouns. Romanian would
have at its disposal accusative non-R clitics (clitics that may double an NP which occupies the Aposition of the direct object); River Plate Spanish, on the other hand, would have at its disposal
only R-clitics (clitics that necessarily bind an empty category in the direct object position, the
doubled NP occupying an A'-position). This difference would account for the contrast in whstructures: in Romanian wh-movement is allowed (because the resulting variable occupies an Aposition), but it is excluded in Spanish, because the variable would illictily occupy an A'position. Aoun's hypothesis is stipulative: the difference between accusative clitics in Romanian
versus Spanish cannot be shown to be relevant in other parts of the grammar. Moreover, Aoun's
hypothesis predicts that, because of their nonreferential status, accusative clitics should be
possible in cine structures, contrary to fact.
4
^Move NP is just a particular case of Move XP, where XP is a maximal projection. I prefer to
restrict attention to Move NP because I am dealing here with the wh-movement of direct object
NPs.
quantification and as an A'-movement configuration, whereas rule (a) relies on

movement without quantification. I have shown that (a) and (b) correspond
respectively to Romanian care and cine structures.
Unlike what happens in Romanian, in English and in Romance languages other
than Romanian the wh-structures that qualify as movement also qualify as
quantification structures. I have shown that this characteristic can be analyzed as a
consequence of the positive value that the structural quantifier parameter takes in
these languages: a wA-phrase in (Spec.C) is necessarily a quantifier, by virtue of its
position. The same parameter accounts for the existence (in English, French, and so
on) versus the absence in Romanian of such constructions as thai relatives, clefts,
topicalizations and infinitival relatives.
These results raise another question: is it possible to show that a relation exists
between the clitic-doubling parameter and the negative value of the structural
quantifier parameter? In Section 6.1.3.2 I suggested that prepositional accusatives
constitute a necessary condition both for clitic doubling, and for the presence of
accusative clitics in wA-structures (in other words, Kayne's Generalization
mentioned in Section 6.1.1.2. extends to w/j-phrases). Since, by our analysis, the
latter characteristic has been subsumed under the negative value of the structural
quantifier parameter, prepositional accusatives may be considered to constitute a
necessary condition (but not a sufficient one, as indicated by River Plate Spanish)
for this paramedical value.
6. 2. Quantification and movement in Left Dislocations

We have so far examined two types of Romanian -structures that both qualify as
movement (as opposed to the resumptive pronoun strategy) but differ from each
other with respect to quantification properties. In this section we will see that this
distinction is relevant for a particular type of left dislocations, which are sensitive to
islands (as opposed to the "standard" left dislocations discussed in Chomsky
(1977)) but do not necessarily rely on quantification (as opposed to topicalizations);
their quantification properties depend on the quantification features of the fronted
constituent.
6. 2. 1. The two types of Left Dislocation
This type of structure has already been identified for Italian by Cinque (1977;
1990), who referred to it as the Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD); see example (37),
as opposed to the standard English-type Left Dislocation (ELD) illustrated in (38):
(37)
(38)
(Pe) Ion 1-am intSlnit anul trecut

(pe) John him-(I) have met year last
(Cit despre) Ion, nu 1-am vzut de anul trecut
(as to) John, not him-(I) have seen since year last
219
As shown by Cinque (1984a, 1990), several syntactic properties distinguish

CLLDs from ELDs. In particular, CLLDs are sensitive to islands, unlike ELDs: 47
(39)
a. *Pe Ion -am intilnit fata care 1-a vzut anul
trecut
pe John not-(I) have met the girl which saw him last year
b. *Pe Ion am plecatinainte
s- examineze
Popescu.
pe John (I) left before that-him examined Popescu

The island sensitivity illustrated in (39) shows that unlike ELDs, 48 CLLDs do rely
on movement (or on some kind of syntactic mechanism comparable to movement;
see Cinque (1990) and the Appendix of this article).
Despite the fact that it relies on movement, the CLLD of definite NPs does not
involve quantification:49 (a) accusative clitics corresponding to a fronted direct
47
Cinque discusses other differences, among them the following: (a) the left-dislocated element
of CLLDs can be of any maximal category (in the sense of X' theory), whereas ELDs essentially
allow for left-dislocated NPs only; (b) there is no theoretical limit to the number of left-dislocated
constituents in CLLDs, whereas ELDs do not allow more than one left-dislocated constituent; (c)
in CLLDs the S-intemal element can only be a clitic, whereas in ELDs an emphatic pronoun can
also appear; (d) there is obligatory "connectivity" (Cinque's connectivity resembles
"reconstruction": the dislocated element behaves as if it occupied the -position with which it is
coindexed) between the left-dislocated constituent and the S-internal position in CLLDs, but not
in ELDs. Let us just illustrate the generalization given in (c):
(i)
*Pe Maria nu vreau s-o mai vd peeatit triesc.
pe Mary (I) not want to-her any more see pe her how long (I) live
(ii) 1(Cit despre) Maria, nu vreau s-o maitvdpe ea tit triesc.
(As for) Mary, (I) not want to-her any more see pe her how long (I) live
'As for Mary, I don't want to see her any more in my whole life.'
Note that care structures behave like CLLDs:
(iii) *fata pe care nu vreau s-o mai vdpe ea tit triesc
the girl pe which (I) not want to-her any more see pe her how long as (I) live
Whereas the presence of the emphatic pronoun pe ea results in ungrammaticaility in both CLLDs
(see (i)) and care structures (see (iii)), the ELD illustrated in (ii) is marginal, but nevertheless
possible. The impossibility of emphatic pronouns in CLLDs may be considered an argument in
favour of the movement hypothesis: the input structure of examples like (i) and (iii) is
ungrammatical; Romanian does not admit doubling sequences that include a clitic, an emphatic
pronoun, and a lexical NP. The (relative) acceptability of emphatic pronouns in examples like (ii)
can be accounted for by adopting the standard analysis of ELDs: in contrast to CLLDs, they do
not rely on movement, or on any other syntactic relation (at S-Structure the left-dislocated
element is not coindexed with any element in S); the clitic is in this case a resumptive pronoun..
^ C o m p a r e ( 3 9 ) with (i)-(iii), which show very mild (if any) island violations:
(i)
(Cit despre) Ion, -am intilnit fata care 1-a vzut ultima dat.
(as to) John, not-(I) have met the girl which him-has seen the last time
(ii) (Cit despre) Ion, am plecat inainte s-1 examineze Popescu.
(as to) John, (I) have left before that-him examine Popescu
(iii) (Cit despre) Ion, s-1 ajufi e plcere.
(as to) John, to-him help is a pleasure.
49
Given our hypothesis concerning the absence of the null operator strategy in Romanian, we
correctly expect that Romanian lacks Topicalization (more concretely, the example in (37) is
ungrammatical without a clitic). We should note that the English-type topicalization is
object are obligatory (see (37)); (b) parasitic gaps are not licensed; (c) no weak
crossover effects can be observed (for illustration, see Cinque (1990) and
Dobrovie-Sorin (1987)). The CLLD of referential expressions thus appears to rely
on the same syntactic mechanism (A'-movement without quantification) as care
structures.
6. 2. 2. The CLLD ofquantiedNPs (QNPs)
Recall that the quantificational status of Romanian
structures depends on the
percolation of qu-features from wA-elements to the wft-phrases that dominate them.
An interesting generalization can be reached if we are able to show that the
proposed typology extends to quantifiers other than w/j-elements.
The examples in (40), which illustrate the CLLD of "bare" quantifiers such as
nimeni 'nobody', cineva 'somebody' and ceva 'something', are parallel to the whstructures that involve "bare" wft-quantifiers such as cine 'who', ce 'what' (see the
examples in (2)):
(40) a. Pe nimeni -am suprat
pe nobody not-(I) have annoyed
b. Ceva ai s descopen i tu.
something (you) will discover you too
c. Pe cineva trebuie s superi tu in ecare zi.
pe somebody (you) must upset every day
Doubling clitics are excluded:
(41) a. *Pe nimeni nu 1-am suprat
b. * Ceva ai s-1 descopen i tu.
c. *Pe cineva trebuie s-1 supen tu in ecare zi.
unacceptable in other Romance languages. In Italian, for instance, only focused NPs are subject to
topicalization (see Cinque (1984a; 1990)):
(i)
Gianni inviterd (non Piero).
John, I'll invite [not Peter]
If Gianni is not stressed, an accusative clitic is obligatory in Italian:
(ii) Gianni, lo inviterd domani [non oggi],
John, I'll invite him tomorrow [not today].
Two questions arise, which will not be answered here: how can we explain the restriction
concerning focus in Italian, and what is the parameter that distinguishes Italian from English?
Crucially, Romanian lacks even the weaker variety of topicalization that characterizes Italian.
Focused direct objects are allowed in S-initial positions, but an accusative clitic is still
obligatory:
(iii) Eu pe Popescu 1-am vSzut (nu pe Ionescu).
me pe Popescu (I) him-saw (not pe Ionescu)
(iv) Eu romanul sta 1-am citit (nu pe cellalt).
me, this novel it (I) read (not pe the other one)'
I will not propose an analysis for this structure. What is relevant here is simply the fact that (iii) and
(iv) do not involve quantification. This is also true of focused NPs in situ (they are not subject to
QR).
221
In (40) the dislocated NP bears gu-features, because bare quantifiers are

exhaustively dominated by their maximal projection. By the condition that precludes
vacuous quantification, an NP marked with gu-features should bind a variable. The
examples in (40) are correct (on a par with (2)b), because a variable is available,
whereas those in (41) are ungrammatical (on a par with (2)a), because the clitic
trace does not qualify as a variable.
We can also find quantifiers corresponding to the care 'which' type of whelement, which cannot percolate features to the NP that dominates them:
(42) a. * Top elevii ti nu cred c pot examina miine.50
all the students your (I do) not think that (I) can examine tomorrow
b. Pe top elevii ti nu cred c-i pot examina miine.
pe all the students your (I do) not think that-them (I) can examine
tomorrow
'Pe all your students, I do not think that I can examine them tomorrow.'
Quite clearly, top' elevii ti 'all your students' functions as dislocated definite NPs
(that is, as referential expressions) generally do (see (37), which is ungrammatical
without a clitic). The ungrammaticality of (42)a is expected: the empty category ej
can only be a variable, but there is no quantifier available to bind it. (42)b is correct,
because the clitic trace does not qualify as a variable. The third type of quantifier is
illustrated by indefinite articles and numerals (see (43)-(44)), which optionally
transmit qu-features to their maximal projection, on a par with w/j-quantifiers such
as cip 'how many' (see (45)-(46)):
(43) a. Un elevjfiecareprofesor va fi in stare s examineze ej.
a studentj each teacher will be able to examine ej
b. Zece elevij va putea examina ej fiecare profesor.
ten studentsj will be able to examine ej each teacher
c. Doi avocafij cunosc ej top judectorii.
two lawyersj know ej all the judges
(44) a. Pe un elevj va trebui s-lj examineze ej fiecare profesor.
pe a studentj will have to-himj examine ej each teacher
b. Pe zece elevij iij va putea examina ej fiecare profesor.
pe ten studentsj themj will be able to examine ej each teacher
50see also the behaviour of oricare/fiecare elev 'whichever/each student':

(i)
* Oricare student nu-s in stare s examinez.
whichever student not [I] am able that [I] e x a m i n e s ^
'Whichever student I am not able to examine.'
(ii) * Fiecare student tiebuie s examinezi cu atenfie.
each student [you] must that [you] examineSubj attentively
'Each student you must examine attentively.'
These examples are grammatical with a doubling clitic and a prepositional accusative.
c. Pe doi avocapj iiy cunosc ej tap judectorii.51

pe two lawyersj themj know ej all the judges
(45) a. Cfp elevij va examina ej fiecare profesor?
how many studentsj will examine ej each teacher?
b. C5]pr avocap'y cunosc ej tofijudectarii?
how many lawyers^ know ej all the judges?
(46) a. Pe cttf elevij Hj va examina ejfiecareprofesor?
pe how many studentsj themj will examine ej each teacher
b. Pe d p avocafij iij cunosc ej tofijudectarii?
pe how many lawyersj themj know ej all the judges
The syntactic difference in quantification status between (43) and (44) correlates
with a quite clear semantic difference. The student in (43)a, the group of ten
students in (43)b, or the group of two lawyers in (43)c may be different from one
teacher to another (or from one judge to another). This interpretation is excluded in
(44)a-c, in which the clitic-doubled dislocated NP can only take specific/referential
readings: 'there is one/ there are ten students such that each teacher will examine
them'; 'there are two lawyers such that all the judges know them'. The interrogatives
given in (45)-(46) correspond respectively to (43)-(44), both structurally (see the
distribution of clitics and of pe) and semantically. (45)a asks a question concerning
the number of students examined by each teacher, which may differ from one
teacher to the other, even if each teacher examines the same number of students, he
does not (necessarily) examine the same group of students. (46)a on the other hand,
asks a question concerning the number of students belonging to a group, which is
identical for all the teachers. This difference in interpretation is generally analyzed
as a scope difference: in (43) the dislocated NPs would take "narrow scope", and
the NPs in situ would take "wide scope"; the reverse would be true of (44). In
Section 6.3.3. we will see that these so-called "scope ambiguities" should be treated
as a particular case of the more general dichotomy between the specific and
nonspecific readings of quantified expressions.
The data examined in this section point to important parallelisms between
Romanian -structures and CLLDs: the movement rule that underlies both these
configurations does not necessarily correlate with a quantification structure; the
51a quite clear difference in acceptability exists between (43) and (44). The examples in (44) are
perfectly grammatical and productive, but examples of the type given in (43), just like those in
(40), are quite marginal. Compare (43) to the ungrammatical examples in (i), in which the subject
is a definite NP; (ii), where the postverbal subject is focused, is better:
(i)
* Un elev Ion poate examina.
a student John is able to examine
(ii) Un elev poate examina $i Ion.
a student is able to examine even John
student even John is able to examine.'
The difference in acceptability between (43) and (44) is due to the fact that the left-dislocated
position preferentially acquires referential expressions. In the unmarked situation a quantified NP
(QNP) on which qu-features have percolated will stay in situ, whereas referential QNPs (QNPs on
which qu-features have not percolated) will be dislocated. Note indeed that referential QNPs in
situ (see Section 3.2) are marginal for certain speakers, but they are fully acceptable in (44).
223
quantification status of both types of configurations depends on the gu-features of

the w/j-phrases and of the dislocated QNPs, respectively.52
6. 3. Quantified NPs and Quantifier Raising
In this section we will see that the principles proposed for wA-structures and
dislocated QNPs extend to QNPs in situ. More precisely, QNPs in situ are not
necessarily subject to Quantifier Raising (QR), just as dislocated QNPs and whphrases are not necessarily involved in quantification structures. The application or
nonapplication of QR, which is constrained by lexical properties and by syntactic
conditions (the presence or the absence of a doubling clitic or a prepositional
accusative), correlates with certain systematic interpretive contrasts (the "specific"
or "nonspecific" readings of indefinites and other "weak" NPs; "wide" or "narrow"
scope).
In the preceding sections an important generalization was assumed: S-Structure
variables cannot be doubled by accusative clitics. In what follows this
generalization will be shown to hold not only for S-Structure but also for the level
of Logical Form (LF).
The behaviour of bare quantifiers follows directly from this generalization; they
cannot be clitic-doubled:
(47) a. *B vei intilni tu pe cineva acolo.
him (you) will meet you pe somebody there
b. *Nul-am
vzut pe nimeni.
not him-(I) have seen pe nobody
Assuming the GB framework, in which QNPs are subject to QR, the examples
given in (47) have the following LF representations:
(47') a. *[<j[pecinevaj] [j'ilj vei intilni ej tu acolo]]
[[pe somebodyj] [' himj (you) will meet ej you there]]
b *[<j[pe nimenij] [g'nu lj-am vzut ej ]]
[gtpe nobodyj] [5'not himj-(I) have seen e j ]
52xhese parallelisms do not mean that w/i-stnictures and CLLDs are completely identical; a
number of differences are expected, related to the quantification properties attached to the
interrogative illocutionary force. Although the data are not completely clear to me, it seems
difficult to find non- wh QNPs corresponding to -phrases such as ce elev 'what student', which
were shown to function necessarily as quantifiers (see Section 1.3); a thorough examination of
compound forms of ce 'what' such as orice (elev) 'whatever (student)', fiece (elev) 'any student'
would be necessary.
The ill-formedness of these LF representations is parallel to that of the S-Structure

representations underlying (41): they contain a quantifier in need of a variable, but
none of the elements in (47') satisfies the definition of variables. As expected, the
examples in (47) become correct if the clitic is deleted.53
6. 3. 2. Clitic doubling and specificity
Let us further consider (48)-(49), in which an indefinite direct object may optionally
be preceded by pe, and clitic-doubled:54
(48)
a. Caut secretar.
(I) look for a secretary
b. caut pe secretar.
her (I) look (for) pe a secretary
(49) a. Am vzut secretar.
(I) have seen a secretary
b. Am vzut-o pe secretar.
(I) have seen-her pe a secretary
Example (48)a displays a well-known ambiguity, which is characteristic of
indefinite NPs not only in Romanian but quite generally, in French, English, and
the like: under the specific reading of the indefinite NP the speaker is looking for a
certain secretary (in this case secretar could be replaced by a definite expression,
or a proper name); under the nonspecific reading the speaker is looking for any
person who is qualified as a secretary. Example (48)b, where the indefinite NP is
clitic-doubled, selects the specific interpretation.
I believe that the specific versus nonspecific ambiguity is characteristic of
indefinites (and of weak NPs; see below) in general, regardless of the context in
which they appear. In particular, it can be observed in "nonopaque" (or
"nonmodal", in Jackendoffs (1972) terms) contexts, as in (49)). The specific
reading of (49)a-b is essentially the same as the specific reading of (48)a-b. Under
the nonspecific interpretation,55 (49)a can be understood to mean 'the number of
53
This generalization also holds for River Plate Spanish. This constitutes an important argument
against Aoun's (1981) parametrized theory of cliticization, since it shows that Romanian
accusative clitics are R-clitics, just like River Plate Spanish clitics, in contradiction to the non-R
nature that Aoun assumes for Romanian accusative clitics in vWi-structures (see footnote 45
above).
54
S o m e Romanian speakers reject (48)b as belonging to the "popular style"; they feel it is
incorrect from the point of view of normative grammar, although Romanian grammars do not
explicitly mention this type of example. The same remark holds for the other (clitic-doubled)
QNPs preceded by pe. For these Romanian speakers QNPs behave like bare quantifiers: the
exclusion of pe, correlated with the exclusion of doubling clitics, is directly accounted for by
assuming obligatory QR. For other speakers, including myself, such examples are grammatical,
and no significant difference in style is perceived. This second category of speakers all agree that
the only possible reading is the specific one.
55
The nonspecific reading of (49)a is nonetheless clearly distinct from that of (48)a: the existence
of a secretary is presupposed in (49), but not in (48). This difference is due to the different type of
verb: in (48) the variable resulting from QR is in the scope of a verb that creates "opacity".
secretaries that I have seen is equal to one 1 , 56 no implicit reference being made to
the identity of the secretary.
The grammaticality of (48)b and (49)b is unexpected on May's (1977) analysis
of the ambiguity characteristic of (48)a. By QR we obtain the LF representation
(48')a, which according to May corresponds to the specific (or "transparent", in
May's own terms) interpretation:57
(48')
a. [$[NPO secretarjlt^cautej]]
ts^NPa secretaryjHs look (for) ej]]

On this assumption, (48)b and (49)b should be associated with (48')b and (49')b,
but these LF-representations are illicit (as indicated by the diamond) on a par with
(47'), whereas the corresponding examples are correct under the specific/transparent
reading:
(48')
b. 0[j}[Nppe secretarjHjjOj caut ej]]
[g[^ppe a secretaryj][<$herj (I) look for e j ]

(49') b. 0[<j[jy[ppe secretarj][gam vzut-Oj ej]]
We are then forced to abandon May's analysis and assume that the type of LF
representation given in (48')a, obtained by QR, corresponds to the nonspecific
reading of (48)a, whereas the specific reading does not depend on QR.
Underlying this analysis is a semantic hypothesis correlated with a certain LF
representation. The semantic assumption is that the specific versus nonspecific
ambiguity is basically an ambiguity concerning the sets on which the determiner
operates: the specific reading involves a set defined at the NP level, by the lexical
properties of the nominal head (class of boys, pupils, girls, and so on),
independently of the rest of the clause, whereas the nonspecific reading involves a
set defined at the clause level, as the intersection of several sets (the NP set and the
predicate set). 58 The second assumption is that this difference in set definition can
5
^This ambiguity is discussed by Kripke (1977) in terms of the distinction between presence and
absence of speaker's reference. Unlike Kripke, I do not think that this difference is pragmatic;
rather, I believe it to be semantic-that is, present at the level of LF (see also 6.1.3.1.).
57
May assumes that the nonspecific ("opaque") reading is marked and as such cannot be
represented at LF. Marked readings would be obtained at another level of the grammar, LF
(which would correspond to the pragmatic component), by "lexical conversion" rules. At LF' a
verb like look for would be represented by try to find, which results in a complex structure,
containing two S nodes: [g try [<j to find NP]]; this provides a second Adjunction position for
QR (the most embedded S), which would allow us to recover the nonspecific reading. It is clear
that this type of solution cannot be extended to all the verbs that create opacity. Partee (1972)
criticizes comparable claims, which had been maintained before May (1977). She notes that in a
sentence such as John wants a grape, want may mean 'want to eat', but also 'want to have', and so
on. Linguistic representations cannot capture this ambiguity.
58
This semantic assumption is quite natural. It is similar to the idea that the distinction between
weak and strong determiners can be stated in terms of a difference in set definition (see Reinhart
(1987)). To this we add the idea that the referential reading of weak determiners is comparable to
the semantics of strong determiners.
be adequately represented at the LF level: QR yields an LF structure in which a

clausal set is involved 59 (such an LF structure is subsequently associated with the
following reading of (48)a: 'there is an such that is a secretary and I look for x");
in the absence of QR the indefinite determiner can only operate on the NP set (the
corresponding reading of (48)a-b would be 'there is an such that is a secretary
and I look for her1).
On the assumption that QR underlies the nonspecific reading, the illicit LF
representations in (48')b and (49')b directly account for the impossibility of this
reading in clitic-doubling contexts. These examples are nonetheless acceptable
under the specific reading, since in this case QR does not apply (and therefore no
illicit LF representation shows up).
The ambiguity characteristic of indefinites can be observed with other weak
NPs:
(50)
a. (i)
(ii)
(iii)
b. (i)
(ii)
(iii)
Am pclit mulp copii, darpe tine -am reufit.

(I) have fooled many children, but pe you not (I) have succeeded
Am dus dou franfuzoaice la gar.
(I) have taken two Frenchwomen to the station
Am plimbat dou pnetene prin G$migiu.
(I) have taken for a walk two friends around Cijmigiu
I-am pclit pe multf copii, dar pe tine -am reuit.
Le-am dus pe dou franpizoaice la gar.
Le-am plimbat pe dou pnetene prin Cimigiu.
(50') a. [stNpmulji copiij ][am pclit ej]]

b. Ofjjfjvjppe mulji copiij ][<j ij-am pclit ej]]
The examples in (50)a show the specific versus nonspecific ambiguity 60
characteristic of indefinites, whereas those in (50)b can be read only in terms of the
specific meaning: in the latter case mulfi quantifies over a set of children that is
supposed to constitute shared knowledge between speaker and hearer (see footnote
25); as for dou pnetene and dou franpizoaice, they take the specific reading in the
sense that the speaker could refer to them by a proper name or another definite
description. The examples in (50)a are not constrained in this way: here the
information the speaker intends to convey may simply concern the number of
children, Frenchwomen, or friends involved in a certain event, with no implicit
59
This can be illustrated by (48')a, or more precisely by its full-fledged version, in which the
quantifier is itself raised out of its NP (on the necessity of this operation, see May (1985, 8)).
The LF representation thus obtained is an 'open formula' in Heim's (1987) terms. Unlike Heim
(1987), however, I identify the semantic notion of "open formula" and the syntactic notion of
"variable". My approach is quite close to that of Heim (1982), who considers that indefinites have
the status of variables, and not of QNPs. I differ from Heim (1982) by postulating that the
variable status of indefinites depends on QR.
6The idea that the semantics of indefinites is just a particular case of the semantics of weak
determiners (in Barwise and Cooper's (1981) terminology) is not unanimously admitted but has
been advanced by certain authors (see Reinhart (1987)). I adopt this view here, and correlatively I
use the terms specific/nonspecific not only for indefinites but also for other weak quantifiers, in
particular numerals.
reference to their identity (or the identity of a group they might belong to). These
interpretive properties, which again raise the above-mentioned problems for May's
analysis, can be correctly accounted for under our assumptions. The nonspecific
reading of (50)a for example derives from the LF representation in (50')a, obtained
by QR, on a par with (48')a. The semantic interpretation associated with this LF
representation defines a clausal set for the quantifier: mulfi 'many' quantifies over
the set of children that have been fooled. In (50)b on the other hand, QR cannot
apply (it would yield the illicit representation (50')b); hence, multf can operate only
on a set of children that is defined independently of the rest of the sentence.61 We
thus have an explanation for why the nonspecific reading is impossible in cliticdoubling configurations.
On the proposed analysis QR must be assumed to apply in contexts where the
NP selects the nonspecific interpretation; examples like (51) are therefore
represented at LF as shown in (51'):
(51) a. Caut un elev care s tie engleze$te.
(I) look for a student which speak su f,j unct j ve English
b. Caut doi elevi care s vorbeasc englezete.
(I) look for two students which speakSubjunctive English
(51') a. [[ u n e ^ e v c a r e ?tie englezejte] [<j caut ej]] 62
We correctly expect that in these contexts clitic doubling is excluded (because (52')
is illicit):
(52) a. *I1 cautpe un elev care s $tie englezete.
b. *Ii caut pe doi elevi care s vorbeasc engleze$te.
(52') a. Q[stNPiPe u n e ' e v c a r e
englezete][ilj caut e j ]
To sum up, the proposed analysis explains how the semantic interpretation can be
constrained by the syntax. We assume the null hypothesis concerning the rules of
grammar: QR applies optionally, resulting in distinct LF representations, which
account for certain semantic ambiguities; if QR is blocked by syntactic constraints
(in particular by clitic doubling), only one LF configuration is available, which
corresponds to the specific reading. The application of QR also depends on the
lexical specifications of the different quantifiers and more precisely on their ability
to transfer qu-features to the NP that dominates them. The application of QR is
indeed subject to the condition stated in (53):
(53) QR applies to an NP that bears gu-features.63
mentioned earlier, this semantic difference triggers a difference in pragmatic meaning.
62It
should be possible to show that QR (and consequently the nonspecific reading) is triggered
by subjunctive relatives, but I will leave this question aside.
63A
different definition of QR may be assumed: QR raises determiners (out of their original
position, be it (Spec,N') or NP), and not NPs (see Dobrovie-Sorin (1988), (1989)). This
restatement is more interesting from the theoretical point of view, and it may turn out to make
different empirical predictions (see Chapter 7). However, the data discussed here do not
discriminate between the two formulations.

This principle differs from May's theory, according to which QR applies to any NP
that dominates a quantifier in (Spec,N'). According to (53), QR applies only if qufeatures have percolated from (Spec.N') to NP. QR necessarily applies to bare
quantifiers, because in this case NP exhaustively dominates the quantifier and
therefore the qu-features attach to NP. With nonbare quantifiers, feature percolation
may be optional, obligatory or impossible, depending on the lexical properties of
the quantifier.
The foregoing analysis of the specific versus nonspecific ambiguity that
characterizes indefinites and other weak NPs is based on the assumption that such
quantifiers are lexically characterized by the optional percolation of gu-features. TTie
obligatory percolation of qu features was illustrated in (51) and (52) for weak NPs
determined by subjunctive relatives. The third possibility characterizes strong
determiners such as to(i 'all', fiecare 'each', oncare 'whichever, any' that cannot
percolate their -features up to the dominating NPs (see also the discussion of
(42)a-b above), which therefore are not accessible to QR:
(54) a. *Am vzut top".
(we) have seen all
b. Am vzut trei.
(we) have seen three
c. I-am vzutpe totf.
them-(we) have seen pe all
d. (I)-am vzut (pe) top copiii,64
them-(we) have seen (pe) all the children
Consider first (54)b, which selects the nonspecific reading (which according to our
hypotheses presupposes QR), in contrast with Am vzut trei copii '(I) have seen
three children', which is ambiguous. This difference in interpretation between
empty-headed and lexical-headed QNPs indicates that QR applies necessarily to the
former but only optionally to the latter. The ungrammatically of (54)a is due to a
contradiction between the requirement on empty-headed QNPs and the lexical
specification of top", namely, its inability to transmit qu-features to its maximal
projection (therefore, by the condition stated in (53), QR cannot apply). The
grammatically of (54)c is due to the presence of the clitic, which blocks QR and
overrides the above-mentioned requirement. 65 The clitic is optional in (54d),
because the head noun is lexical, and therefore QR is not obligatory (top' quantifies
^Fiecare 'each' and oncare 'whichever, any' present comparable paradigms; see in particular the
impossible forms parallel to (54)a:
(i)
* Trebuie s examinezi fiecare.

you must examine each
(ii)
*Po(i s invi(i oricare.

you may invite whichever
65A
complete analysis of the paradigm (54), which cannot be made here, should provide a
theoretical motivation for the requirement on QNPs with empty heads (the necessary
identification of the empty category is probably the relevant principle) and for the fact that clitic
doubling can override it. It would also be interesting to compare Romanian with French and
Italian (see Cinque (1986)), two non-clitic-doubling languages that present paradigms comparable
to (54)a-c.
over the set defined by the head noun). Note that clitic doubling is acceptable in this
case for all Romanian speakers, whereas some of them reject the clitic doubling of
weak NPs (see footnote 54).
6. 3. 3. Scope ambiguities
Let us now examine the following examples:
(55) a. Fiecare profesor va examina zece elevi.
each professor will examine ten students
b. Topjudectorii cunosc doi avocap'.
all the judges know two lawyers
c. Top' copiii
au vzut un actor celebru.
all the children have seen, a well-known actor
These sentences are characterized by a well-known ambiguity, which is generally
assumed to derive from different scope assignments. According to one possible
interpretation, the ten students examined may differ from one teacher to another, in
other words, (55)a says something about a number of students that is greater than
ten; in (55)b each judge does not necessarily know the same two lawyers; in (55)c
each child may have seen a different actor. The representations generally assumed
(since May (1977)) for this type of reading are the ones given in (55'), where the
NPs set in bold characters are assigned narrow scope:
(55') a. [fiecare profesorjj [zece elevi]: [ej va examina ej]
[each teacher]} [ten students]j [ej will examine ej]
b. [top judectorii] j [doi avocap]; [ej cunosc e;]
[all the judges] j [two lawyers]j [ej know ej]
c. [top copiii] j [un actor]j [ej au vzut ej]
[all the children]} [an actor]j [ej saw ej]
The examples in (55) are compatible with a second series of possible readings:
'there are ten students A, B,..., J, such that each teacher will examine A,B,.. J ' (55)a;
'there are two lawyers A and B, such that all the judges know A and B' (55)b; 'there
is a (certain) actor such that all the children saw him' (55)c. According to May,
these interpretations can be represented by the LF configurations given in (55"),
where the NPs set in bold characters have wide scope:
(55") a. [zece elevi]j [fiecare profesor]} [ej va examina ej]
[ten students]j [each teacher]} [ej will examine ej]
b. [doi avocap]j [top judectorii]j [ej cunosc ej]
[two lawyers]j [all judges]} [ej know ej]
c. [un actor]j [top copiii]j [ej au vzut ej]
[an actor]; [all children]} [ej saw e;]
Let us now consider the same examples with clitic doubling:

(56)
a. Fiecareprofesoriivaexamina
pezeceelevi.
b. Topjudectorii ii cunosc pe doi avocap.
c. Top copiii 1-au vzutpe un actor celebru.
These examples can only be understood in terms of the second type of

interpretation, the one that is generally assumed to be associated with wide scope.
On the model of (55") we should assume the following LF configurations for the
sentences in (56):
(56") a. 0 [pe zece elevi]j [fiecare profesor]j [ej lij va examina ej]
[ten students]j [each teacher]j [ej themj will examine ej]
b. 0 [pe doi avocafi]: [top judectorii] j [ej j cunosc ej]
[two lawyers]; [all the judges] j [ej themj know ej]
c. 0 [pe un actorjj [toji copiii]j [ej L-au vzut e:]
[an actor]j [all the children] j [ej himj saw ej]
These LF structures are illicit, since the NPs raised by QR should function as
quantifiers, but none of the elements that bear a j index can qualify as a variable. We
thus come up against a paradox: in order to account for the 'wide-scope'
interpretation, we have to assume the LF configurations in (56"), but they are
illicit.66 The same difficulty arises with other examples:
(57)
a. Ieri -am examinat mulp elevi.

yesterday not (I) have examined many students
b. Ieri nu i-am examinat pe mulp elevi.
yesterday not-them (I) have examined pe many students
In (57)b the quantifier mulp 'many' is not affected by the negation; the only possible
reading is 'there are many students that I didn't examine', which means that (57)b is
not the opposite of have examined many students'. In (57)a on the other hand, the
quantifier many is affected by the negation and a possible gloss is have examined
few students'.
If we try to account for these readings in terms of different scope assignments at
LF, we are again confronted with an illicit representation, (57")b, that corresponds
to die correct sentence (57)b:
(57") b. 0[pe mulp elevi]j [nu]j [ej ij-am examinat ej]
[pe many students]j [not]j [ej themj (I) have examined ej]
We are then forced to abandon the widely accepted hypothesis according to which
the so-called wide scope interpretation relies on QR at LF. It is instead possible to
show that this construal reduces to the specific reading, which according to our
6 6 A similar paradox emerges if we adopt May's (1985) Scope Principle. Since for present
purposes the two formalisms are equivalent, we will stick to the older theory.
analysis does not involve QR in S but instead relies on a quantification process

internal to the NP: specific NPs are referentially closed expressions (just like
definite NPs or proper names), which as such cannot be affected by external
quantifiers. This amounts to saying that in (56) the object NPs are not really widescoped, but rather not narrow-scoped.
Let us now turn to narrow scope, which will be defined as follows: 67
(58)
"is in the scope o f ' (= the referential properties of are affected by the
quantificational properties of ) if (a) is a variable and (b) is ccommanded by . 68
In (58) "relative scope" is defined not as a relation between two quantifiers but as a
relation between a variable and an element that c-commands it. The idea that the
"narrow-scope" interpretation is necessarily associated with the presence of a
variable is natural: variables are referentially open expressions,69 and as such they
are accessible to external quantification.
Let us now come back to our examples. According to (58), a narrow-scoped NP
is an NP that is subject to QR (which within the framework adopted here is the
only grammatical mechanism that generates variables). The following type of LF
representation should then be adopted for the narrow-scope interpretation of the
NPs set in bold characters in (55):
(55^) a. [zece elevi]j [fiecare profesoq va examina ej]
[ten students]j [each teacherj will examine ej]
In (55^) the variable ej is c-commanded by the subject NP; therefore, according to
(58), the narrow-scope reading is allowed for the object NP. On this analysis, the
unavailability of the narrow-scope interpretation for clitic-doubled QNPs (see (56))
is straightforward, since LF representations of the type in (56^) are illicit (on a par
with (56")):
(563) a . 0[pe zece elevi]: [fiecare profesorj ii; va examina e:]
67
In the recent literature similar principles have been independently formulated by Aoun and Li
(1989) and Williams (1988), whose proposal was inspired by Hoji (1985) and Huang (1982).
68A
stronger requirement might be necessary (possibly Condition A of the binding theory, see
Sloan (1988)). I leave this aside because the relevant empirical data are outside the scope of this
chapter. I simply suggest that such a stronger condition might be derived from the following
proposition: a variable can be affected by a c-commanding NP if and only if the c-commanding
NP is not excluded by the range of the variable, where the "range" of the variable is the c-domain
of the quantifier raised by QR. This proposition need not be stipulated; it derives directly from
the basic idea that underlies my approach: variables can be affected by external quantifiers just
because they count as open expressions; but they count as open expressions only in a certain
domain, their "range". Outside this domain, they count as closed expressions.
69
This idea becomes even clearer if we assume the formalism suggested in footnote 63 and
developed in chapter 7: if QR applies to (Spec,N'), we obtain open formulae (see also footnote
59), which as such are accessible to external quantification.
[ten studentsjj [each teacherj themj will examine ej]

This account of (55) and (56) extends to (57)a and (57)b respectively. Note that in
(55^) and (56^) the subject NPs remain in situ. These LF representations are
allowed by (58), which imposes no constraint on ; in particular need not be
raised by QR. Moreover, in (55) the subject QNPs cannot be raised (because they
are strong NPs, which do not bear qu-features and therefore (by virtue of (53)) are
inaccessible to QR; see the discussion of (54)). In other cases wide-scoped NPs
cannot assume a quantifier status because of syntactic constraints:
(59) Pe zece elevi ii vor asculta doi profeson.
pe ten students them will examine two professors
(59') [doi profesorij] [spe zece elevij iij vor asculta ej ej]]70
Assuming that doi profeson is subject to QR, the resulting variable is in the scope
of zece elevi (because it is c-commanded by zece elevi). We therefore correctly
expect that the sentence says something about a number of teachers between two
and twenty. Note that zece elevi is clitic-doubled, and as such it cannot participate in
a quantificational structure; it can only take the specific reading (a group of ten
students). This indicates that a referential expression (be it a specific NP, definite
plurals, or the like), which is not subject to QR, may nevertheless take wide
scope;71 that is, it may affect the interpretation of the variables that it c-commands.
These examples show that (58) is correctly formulated: QR must necessarily be
assumed for narrow-scoped NPs, but not for wide-scoped NPs 7 2
Note however that the examples we have examined so far are all characterized by
the fact that the c-command requirement formulated in (58) is satisfied at SStructure (more precisely, the wide-scoped NP c-commands the narrow-scoped NP
at S-Structure; therefore, at LF the former will necessarily c-command the variable
left behind by the QR of the latter); this is why the wide-scoped NPs need not be
raised by QR at LF. A possible difficulty may come from the following examples,
in which the subject NPs can be interpreted as being in the scope of the cliticdoubled object NPs, in spite of the fact that the c-command requirement is not
satisfied at S-Structure:
(60) a. Cite un profesor/Cite doi profeson iij vor examina pe 20 de studenpj.
every one professor/ every two professors themj will examine pe 20
students!
b. Cel pupn doi profeson iij vor examina pe 20 de studenpi.
at least two professors themj will examine pe 20 studentsi
0ft>r the relative position of postverbal subjects and direct objects in Romanian, see DobrovieSorin (1987).
7
' N o t e that the meaning of "wide scope" used here is equivalent to "scope over", to be kept
distinct from the meaning "not narrow-scoped" which we discussed with respect to (56).
72 I t
is clear, however, that the quantification properties of wide-scoped NPs should be specified;
plurals and referential QNPs can take wide scope, whereas singular nonquantificational
expressions cannot.
If we assume that clitic-doubled NPs cannot be raised by QR, the variable resulting
from the QR of the subject NPs will not be c-commanded by the object NPs at LF;
therefore the narrow-scope interpretation of the subject NPs in these examples
cannot be accounted for by (58). 73 Two solutions may be considered. The first
would be to say that the narrow-scope interpretation of the subject NPs in (60)a-b
does not pertain to LF. The second would be to assume that besides QR (which
according to (53) applies exclusively to NPs that bear gu-features) we need a
second rule, which raises NPs, even if they do not bear gu-features. This rule may
be viewed as a case of pied-piping; we may also recall Heim's (1982) rule of NP
Raising, which raises all NPs, regardless of their quantification properties. The
resulting LF representations will be distinct: QR gives rise to a quantification
relation, which involves a variable bound to a quantifier, NP Raising does not leave
any variable and the raised NP does not count as a quantifier (this rule is therefore
allowed to raise clitic-doubled NPs, unlike QR), but can be construed as having
scope over a variable that it c-commands.74
Let us now compare (55) and (56) to (43) and (44), whose (a)-sentences are
repeated here:
(43)
a. Un elevj ecare profesor va stare s examineze ei.

a (one) studenti each teacher will be able to examine ei
(44) a. Pe un elevj va trebui s-lj examineze ecare teacher ei.
pe a studenti will have to-himj examine each professor ej
'There is one student that each teacher will have to examine.'
The semantic contrast between (43) and (44), where the object NP occupies a
dislocated position, is comparable to the contrast between (55) and (56), where the
NP stays in situ. This state of affairs illustrates a well-known generalization,
according to which the extraction of a QNP out of a "nonisland" constituent
preserves the scope properties defined on the basis of its position in D-structure
(see Van Riemsdijk and Williams (1981), Cinque (1982), Haik (1984)). According
to the theory proposed here, this generalization can be explained without resorting
to reconstruction. Independently of its S-Structure position (direct object position or
the A'-position characteristic of left dislocations), a clitic-doubled QNP counts as a
referential expression, and as such it does not count as being "in the scope" of
another quantifier (see (44), where the empty category in the object position cannot
count as a variable, and (56), where QR leads to the illicit LF structures in (56^)).
Likewise, independently of its S-Structure position, a nondoubled object QNP may
be interpreted as being in the scope of a subject QNP (by (58) the relevant LF
relation is the one between the variable in the object position and the c-commanding
subject NP). To illustrate this, consider (43), where the dislocated object NP is not
c-commanded by the subject NP at S-Structure; however, the subject NP does ccommand the variable that occupies the object position and is bound to the
73
S e e also the discussion of Someone loves everyone in Williams (1988).

T h u s , the role of NP Raising is to widen up scope between S-Structure and LF, unlike QR.
The output position of a constituent raised by QR (unlike the output position of a constituent
raised by NP Raising) is not relevant for (58). The only effect of QR is to assign a variable status
to certain elements.
74
dislocated QNP. That is why, by virtue of (58), the dislocated object QNP is
construed as taking narrow scope. As for (55), the relevant relation is established at
LF, between the variable in object position and the subject NP (see the LF structure
given in (55^)).
Note however that the parallelism between QNPs in situ and QNPs in A'positions is not perfect: (55) allows the referential or wide-scope interpretation of
the italicized NPs, in contrast to (43). This asymmetry between QNPs in situ and
dislocated QNPs is due to their different S-Structure positions. Nondoubled QNPs
in situ are ambiguous, because in the absence of a doubling clitic QR may, but need
not, apply. Dislocated QNPs on the other hand cannot assume an ambiguous
interpretation: in the absence of a clitic, an empty category in the object position
qualifies as a variable, and this necessarily correlates with the
nonspecific/nonreferential reading and the possibility of narrow scope; conversely,
if a clitic is present, no variable is available, which correlates with the
specific/referential and wide-scope readings.75
6. 3. 4. Prepositional accusatives and specificity
Consider the following examples:
(61)
75
a.
Cautpeo secretar.
(I) look for pe a secretary
b.
*Cautpe un elev care s tie engleze$te.
(I) look for pe a student which know s u ^j u n c t j v e English
c. (i) Am pclit pe multf copii, dar pe tine -am reuiL
(I) have fooled pe many children, but pe you not-(I) have succeeded
(ii) Am dus pe dou franpizoaice la gar.
(I) have taken pe two French women to the station
(iii) Am plimbatpe dou pnetene pnn Gmigiu.
(I) have taken for a walk pe two friends around Cijmigiu
d.
* Cautpe doi elevi care s vorbeasc engleze$te.
(I) look for pe two students which speak s u j,j u n c t j v e ' English
The same asymmetry between the in situ and the adjunction schema of quantification can be
observed in (i)-(ii) versus (iii)-(iv), where the clitic is respectively optional and obligatory; note
that fiecare 'each' and oricare 'any' are compound forms of care:
(i)
Invit-) pe oricare elev.
invite (him) pe anywhich student
'Invite any of the students.'
(ii) Trebuie s-(i) examinm pe fiecare in parte.
[we] must that-(them) [we]examineSubj pe eachwhich individually
'We must examine each of them individually.'
(iii) biatul pe care 1-ai vzut
the boy pe which [you] him-have seen
'the boy you saw'
(iv) * biatul pe care ai vzut
the boy pe which (you) have seen
235
These examples, characterized by the presence of a QNP preceded by pe (that is,

marked for the prepositional accusative; see Farkas (1978) and Dobrovie-Sorin
(1987)), are marginal for most speakers: in contemporary Romanian prepositional
accusatives are necessarily clitic-doubled, whenever possible. At the beginning of
the century these examples not only were correct but in fact constituted the
unmarked possibility. I will not propose an explanation for this recent evolution of
the language. Of interest here is the fact that the only possible interpretation of these
examples was (and still is, for those speakers who accept (61)a,c) the specific
one. 76 The selection of this interpretation obviously depends on the presence of the
preposition pe: if pe is absent, the nonspecific reading is also possible, along with
the specific one.
According to our principles, the unavailability of the nonspecific interpretation
indicates that QR does not apply. Since (by virtue of (53)) QR applies only to NPs
that are marked with qu-features, we must assume that the NPs in (61) lack qufeatures. This is expected if we assume that feature percolation is constrained by
locality conditions, applying to NPs of the form [pp pe [NPtSpec,N' Q] N']: the
transmission of the qu-features from Q to PP crosses a barrier (the NP is not Lmarked by pe). 7 7 Note that this explanation is parallel to the one proposed in
Section 6.1.3.2. for the distribution of prepositional accusatives with whexpressions. Examples (61)b,d are ungrammatical, because the subjunctive relative
requires QR (see the discussion of (51) and (52)), whereas pe precludes QR.
According to this explanation, in (61) QR is blocked by pe. In clitic-doubling
structures (see (56)) QR is blocked both by pe and by the doubling clitic. The
compulsory presence of both pe and an accusative clitic also characterizes
dislocated referential QNPs and the pe care type of wh-structures (see (44) and
(46)). An accusative clitic is in this case obligatory because an empty category not
identified by a clitic would necessarily qualify as a variable, but there is no
quantifier to bind it (recall that referential QNPs and the care type of wh-phrases do
not bear qu features, and therefore cannot function as quantifiers). As to the
compulsory presence of pe, it is due to the Case Filter (see Section 6.1.3.2).
Bare quantifiers such as cine 'who' and nimeni 'nobody' are necessarily preceded
by pe (because of their [+human] , [+pronominal] features) when they belong to a
th-chain that includes the direct object position. These quantifiers are necessarily
subject to QR, which is not blocked by pe: in [pppe [NP cine]] 'pe who' and [ p p
pe [NP nimeni]]
'pe nobody' the NP does not constitute a barrier for the
transmission of qu-features from cine/nimeni
to the PP node, because NP
76A
comparable generalization holds for Spanish (see Jaeggli (1982)). More precisely, certain
speakers reject prepositional accusatives (marked by a) with QNPs; other speakers tend to accept
them, but only on the specific interpretation.
77
This account is stated more elegantly if we assume the definition of QR suggested in footnote
63: assuming that QR raises not NPs but quantifiers, the locality conditions would block the
movement of the quantifier itself. The suggested QR rule does have an S-Structure counterpart:
French examples such as j'ai beaucoupj lu ej de livres have a lotj read [ei of books]' would be a
case in point. The proposed analysis of prepositional accusatives then makes the following
interesting prediction for a language that would exhibit both prepositional accusatives and an SStructure QR of the French type: the latter should be allowed with nonprepositional accusatives,
and excluded with prepositional accusatives. This is exactly the case of Bengali, as I have been
informed by P. Dasgupta (personal communication; see Dasgupta (1988)).
exhaustively dominates cine/nimeni. The ungrammaticality of examples like (47) is

due exclusively to the presence of doubling clitics: QR must apply, but it cannot,
because the resulting variable would be illicit.
To sum up, we have seen that data involving clitic doubling and prepositional
accusatives force us to abandon the hypothesis according to which the78specific or
transparent reading of indefinites and other weak NPs relies on QR. We have
further argued that scope ambiguities constitute a particular case of the
specific/nonspecific ambiguity. Specific NPs cannot take narrow scope, because
this reading depends on QR, and this rule cannot affect specific NPs; specific NPs
are compatible with the wide scope reading, which does not depend on QR.
Nonspecific NPs are necessarily subject to QR; if the resulting variable is ccommanded by another QNP, they will be construed as narrow-scoped. Our theory
of scope ambiguities is thus defined on the basis of the relations between a variable
and a c-commanding NP (which need not-and perhaps cannot-function as a
syntactic quantifier; that is, it need not be subject to QR). This approach crucially
differs from May's Scope Principle, according to which it is the relative hierarchical
position (at LF) of the QNPs themselves that accounts for the difference in
interpretation.
6. 4. Indirect objects
6. 4. 1. Clitic doubling of indirect objects and quantication
Consider (62) and (63):
(62) Cuij (i)-ai
trimis bani ej?
whomj)at (himj)at) have (you) sent money
'Whom did you send money?'
(63) Nu (i)-am
sens nimnui.
not (himj)at)-(I) have written nobodyj)at
haven't written to anybody'
78
Our results come close to Fodor and Sag's (1982) conclusions, according to which referential
expressions "do not have any scope" (in other words, they do not enter quantifier-variable
configurations). One of Fodor and Sag's arguments is based on the following examples:
(i)
John overheard the rumor that each of my students had been called before the dean.
(ii) John overheard the rumor that a student of mine had been called before the dean.
Example (i) shows that QR obeys the Complex NP Constraint: although each is normally
interpreted in terms of wide scope, (i) does not have the interpretation according to which for each
student x, John overheard the rumor that that student had been called before the dean. On the
assumption that indefinites suppose QR of the existential operator, we would expect the scope of
this quantifier to be restricted to the embedded clause, contrary to fact. Example (ii) is indeed
compatible with the wide-scope interpretation: Mary is one of my students and John overheard
the rumor that she had been called before the dean. This interpretation does not square with the
hypothesis according to which indefinite NPs are necessarily submitted to QR, if QR is sensitive
to islands. Fodor and Sag thus come to the conclusion that the "referential" interpretation of
indefinite NPs should not be represented in terms of quantification.
237
The grammaticality of (63) indicates that the LF representation given in (63') is licit,
on a par with the S-Structure representation of (62):
(63')
[nimnui]j [s nu ij-am scris ej]
We can also note that the different semantic restrictions associated with clitic
doubling analyzed in Sections 6.3.2. and 6.3.3 do not show up for quantified
indirect objects:
(64) a. Saie-(i) unui elev care s $tie englezete.
write-(him) aoat student which that (he) knowsut,j English
b. Ion (ii) va cere unei secretary s-1 ajute.
John (her) will ask aoat secretary (that) (she) help him
'John will ask a secretary to help him.'
c. Nu (le)-am sens multor elevi.
(I) have not (them) written manyoat students
The nonspecific interpretation is possible in all these examples, in spite of the
presence of the clitic. According to the analysis proposed in Section 6.3, this
reading relies on QR at LF; the LF configurations resulting from QR must then be
ruled in, on a par with (63').
These data can be subsumed under the following generalization, which holds not
only for Romanian but also for Spanish79 (standard, as well as River Plate):
variables can be doubled by dative clitics (as opposed to accusative clitics).
According to Jaeggli (1982), the contrast in clitic doubling between direct and
indirect objects is due to the difference in categorial status between indirect and
direct objects (PP versus NP). 80 It is obvious that this hypothesis cannot be
extended to Romanian, where indirect objects are NPs morphologically marked for
dative Case; if the categorial label were crucial, Romanian datives should behave
like direct objects and contrast with Spanish indirect objects, but this is not the case.
We may instead treat the difference between direct and indirect objects in terms of
Here are some relevant examples from Jaeggli (1982):

A qui6n (le) han
regalado ese libro?
to whom (him) have [they] given this book
(ii) Maria, a quien (le) han regalado ese libro, estaba muy preocupada.
Maria, to whom (her) [they] have given this book, was very thoughtful
(iii) No le regalaron libros a ningun chico.
not him [they] did give books to any kid
(iv) Le mando sus libros a algun descuidado que los perdio.
him [he] sent his books to some careless person who them lost
80j a e gg (1982) assumes that clitics absorb "S-government" (the subcategorization features
corresponding respectively to indirect and direct objects). The absorption of S-government
predicts, by virtue of the Empty Category Principle (for Jaeggli S-govemment is a condition on
proper government), the impossibility of extracting a clitic-doubled NP, as observed for direct
objects. But this prediction is false for indirect objects, as shown in (i)-(iv) of footnote 79. In
order to avoid this erroneous outcome, Jaeggli restricts the ECP to NPs ("A NP-trace must be
properly governed"), and thus puts indirect objects out of the reach of the ECP.
(i)
Case. 8 1 We will assume Chomsky's (1980; 1981, 170) principles of Case

assignment (objective and inherent Case are the only Cases relevant here). ((65)a-b
are (Iii) and (lv) in Chomsky (1981, 170).)
(65)
a. NP is objective if governed by V with the subcategorization feature: -NP

(i.e., transitive).
b. NP is inherently Case-marked as determined by properties of its [-N]
governor.
In both Romanian and Spanish direct objects are assigned objective Case under
government by the verb, whereas indirect objects are "inherently Case-marked".82
These two types of Cases are crucially different. Objective Case is a structural
Case, assigned at S-Structure by verbal categories to a given syntactic position,
independently of the particular th-role assigned to it, and independently of the type
of element (empty or lexical) that occupies it. Objective Case can be viewed as the
identification of a syntactic position by the verbal head: objective Case renders the
direct object position visible, even if no lexical element occupies it at S-Structure.
Inherent Cases, on the other hand, are presumably related to particular th-roles
and assigned at D-Structure. Given these standard assumptions concerning inherent
Case, the following question arises: Can empty categories resulting from movement
be inherently Case-marked? The answer is most certainly no: inherent Case is not
assigned at S-Structure, the only level at which traces show up. In other words,
inherent Case is relevant for lexical elements, but not for empty categories.83 This
means that inherent Case cannot help in distinguishing between the different types
of empty categories. 84 More precisely, the Case requirement that enters the
definition of variables (see Chomsky (1981)) makes sense for structural Case in
81
A proposal by Jaeggli (1986) takes the same direction for Spanish itself. According to Jaeggli,
dative clitics, unlike accusative clitics, are optional absorbers of Case: they may be assigned
dative Case, but need not be. In a clitic-doubling construction the clitic does not absorb dative
Case, which is therefore available for the doubled lexical NP or for the clitic trace. Consequently,
a dative clitic trace can qualify as a variable. What seems crucial in Jaeggli's hypothesis is the
definition of clitic traces: (a) a clitic that has absorbed Case necessarily determines a pro; (b) a
clitic that is not marked for Case is unable to determine a pro in the argument position, which
will therefore be filled by a variable. But these two definitions cannot be empirically tested; nor
can the idea that dative clitics are optional absorbers of Case. As a matter of fact, underlying
Jaeggli's (1985) analysis is the implicit idea that dative Case is not relevant for the identification
of indirect object empty categories. This more radical hypothesis will be defended here.
82
The inherent Case markings corresponding to indirect objects are phonetically realized in both
these languages: by means of morphological Case in Romanian and by means of a preposition in
Spanish.Vergnaud (1982) has shown that in French functions as a Case marker when used in
front of indirect objects; this hypothesis could be extended to Spanish, but the matter is
controversial (see Jaeggli (1982) and Demonte (1987)). For ease of reference, I will speak of
dative Case when referring to indirect objects in Spanish, be they nominal or clitic.
83
This conclusion may also derive from the idea that inherent Cases are not assigned, but just
"marked"; and "marking" can only be relevant for lexical categories.
8
^Cinque (1990) assumes that in Italian, indirect object empty categories do not fall under the
typology of empty categories because of their PP status. The Romanian data indicate that this
characteristic of indirect objects is due not to their PP status but probably to the fact that they are
not assigned structural Case.
Clitic doubling, wh-movement
and quantification
239
general, and for objective Case in particular, but not for inherent Case; as a
consequence, the presence of a dative clitic (on which inherent Case is realized) will
be irrelevant for the variable status of the empty category it binds. This explains
why dative clitics are optional in quantification structures.
6. 4. 2. Romanian relatives and interrogatives containing cruia
Let us now tum to the contrast between (66) and (67):
(66) a. Cruiajif-ai
trimis bani ej?
whichp at himj) at -have (you) sent money e
'To which one did you send money?'
b. [Crui biat]jij-ai
trimis bani ej?
[whichoat boy] himDat have (you) sent money e
'To which boy did you send money?'
c. biatul cruiajij-am
trimis bani ej
the boy whichDat himD a f(I) have sent money
'the boy to whom I sent money'
(67) a. *Cruiaj ai trimis bani ej?
b. * Crui biatj ai trimis bani ej?
c. * biatul cruiaj am trimis bani ej
The analysis of care structures proposed in Section 6.1 can be extended to crui(a):
the maximal projection that dominates this wA-element does not count as a syntactic
quantifier; consequently, cruia cannot license an indirect object variable. The
ungrammaticality of the examples in (67) is due to the fact that ej cannot be
identified contextually: it cannot be a clitic trace, because no clitic is there to identify
it; it cannot be an anaphor, because it is not -bound; it cannot be a variable,
because cruia does not qualify as a quantifier. 85 The examples in (66) are
85
I n the early 1900s the following sentences were possible in Romanian (examples from Nilson
(1969)):
(i)
acel Cuza cruia datorim toate liberttile...
that Cuza whichjj a t (we) owe all the liberties
(D. Zamfirescu 1938)
(ii)
ideea c Turcia nu va putea s dureze, ci pindesc
primejdii crora nu va putea s
reziste...
the idea that Turkey will not be able to last, that dangers watch her whichjj a t (she) will
not be able to resist
(Iorga 1927)
For Steriade (1980) the possibility of (iii), in which the dative pronoun is not cliticized, explains
the possibility of (i)-(ii), in which the clitic is absent:
(iii) Cinti, c dau eu un bac$i lie.
sing for give I a tip y o u p a t
'Sing, and I'll give a tip to you'
(Sadoveanu 19,5, quoted by Sandfeld and Olsen (1936,1,126).
grammatical, because in this case ey is identified as a clitic trace by the dative

clitic.86
6. 4. 3. Clitic Left Dislocation of indirect objects
If we are right in assuming that CLLD relies on the same mechanism as
Romanian wA-structures (see Section 6.2.), we expect dative clitics to be obligatory
in sentences where a referential indirect object has been left-dislocated (as in carestructures). This is indeed the case:
(68) Biatului *(ii) voi trimite bani mi/ne.87
boy-theoat *(himDat) HI send money tomorrow
We also expect dislocated quantifiers to function on a par with interrogative cui
'whomDat' and allow optional clitics:
(69) Nimnui nu e$ti obligat s-(i) scrii.
nobodyj)at not (you) are obliged to write (him)
'To nobody are you obliged to write.'
The parallelism between wh-structures and CLLDs thus appears to be very neat in
Romanian, both for direct and for indirect objects.
Appendix: Italian CLLD
The properties of CLLD discussed in Section 6.2 also characterize Italian CLLD,
analyzed by Cinque (1984a; 1990):
(70) a. Gianni, lo vedrd domani.
Gianni, him I'll see tomorrow
b. *Gianni, vedrd domani.
(71)
* Giannij, Ij'ho cercato permesi senza trovare ej.
Gianni, him (I) looked for for months without finding
8 6 j h e dative clitic is not obligatory if cruia is pied-piped. In (i) the pied-piped constituent is
indefinite and as such may qualify as a quantifier; a dative clitic is optional, just as in
interrogatives introduced by cui 'who^':
(i)
Popescu, unor adoratori ai cruia ar fost greu s (le) mrturisim situajia delicat in care ne
aflam,..
Popescu, s o m e ^ j admirers of whom [it] would have been difficult (themd a t) tell the
delicate situation in which (we) were,...
87m the Italian counterparts of these examples the dative clitics are optional (see Cinque (1984a;
1990)). This difference between Romanian and Italian is somewhat unexpected, given the
otherwise neat parallelisms between the two languages (see the Appendix). According to Cinque,
the Italian data indicate that the indirect object may function, at least in certain contexts, as a PP,
which is never the case in contemporary Romanian.
The systematic parallelism between Romanian CLLDs and Italian CLLDs suggests
that these constructions rely on the same syntactic rule. However, unlike Romanian,
Italian does not allow for the clitic doubling of direct objects. In other words, Italian
does not present any grammatical input for a movement transformation that would
have CLLDs as output. But this does not mean that a movement analysis cannot be
assumed:88 a movement analysis is accepted for passives, for instance, even though
the input structures are ungrammatical. As a matter of fact, no necessary relation
between clitic doubling and CLLDs can be established on theoretical grounds.
CLLDs are licit with respect to the various principles and conditions of the
grammar, independently of the existence of clitic doubling, which depends on the
existence of a preposition that assigns Case to the doubled direct object (see Section
6.1.1.). Italian lacks such a preposition, which accounts for the impossibility of
clitic doubling. How do we then account for the fact that left-dislocated direct
objects can be doubled by a clitic, with no violation of the Case Filter? Either of the
following hypotheses could answer this question: (a) NPs in dislocated positions
are not subject to the Case Filter, (b) a default Case is assigned in A'-positions. As
for the impossibility of clitics in Italian wA-structures, it can be explained by the
structural quantifier parameter: an NP in Comp has the status of an operator, which
must bind a variable, hence the exclusion of accusative clitics (recall that this
explanation is also needed for River Plate Spanish, a clitic-doubling language).
88
According to Cinque (1984a; 1990) the Italian CLLD does not rely on movement. Note
however that Cinque's main arguments (parasitic gaps, weak crossover) show that CLLDs do not
rely on W/i-Movement, and more precisely that CLLDs are not quantification structures. This
does not necessarily imply a nonmovement analysis. The difference between the movement and
nonmovement analyses of the CLLD may tum out to be purely terminological. If we choose to
assume that the only syntactic rule is Move (see Chomsky (1976)), the Italian CLLD is a
movement configuration (since it shows island violations, the CLLD counts as a rule of
grammar), even if there is no grammatical input for movement (see Cinque (1977)). A different
analysis of the Italian CLLD is necessary (a) if movement can be defined independently of island
sensitivity; (b) if we are able to show that the Italiai. CLLD does not satisfy this definition of
movement. In this case it would still be possible to account for the island sensitivity
characteristic of Italian CLLDs by adopting Cinque's (1990) Well-Formedness Condition on
Chains, which is stated independently of movement.
7. What does QR raise?*
7. 1. Two LF rules: NPR and DR

In Chapter 6, evidence was presented in favour of the idea that Q(uantifier)
R(aising) is constrained by condition (1). Compare May's (1977,1985) rule of QR,
given in (2):
(1)
(2)
QR raises an NP that bears qu-features.

QR raises quantified NPs.
By virtue of (1), QR applies only if gu-features have percolated from the determiner
to the dominating NP. This constraint does not apply in (2): any NP whose (Spec,
NP) dominates a quantifier qualifies as a "quantified NP", and as such is affected
by QR.
In what follows, the feature percolation procedure will be replaced by a
movement rule:
(3)
DR raises1 determiners.2
(By "determiner" I mean any kind of functional element3 that is part of the DP 4
domain: cardinals and other "weak" determiners, as well as the definite article and
"strong" determiners (in the sense of Milsark (1977)) are considered
"determiners".)
* The central idea of this chapter was presented at the Tilburg LF Conference in 1988 and
published in Dobrovie-Sorin (1991). The present version has benefited from comments by Dan
Finer, Jim Higginbotham, Utpal Lahiri, Howard Lasnik, Richard Larson, Peter Ludlow, Hans
Obenauer, Elisabeth Villalta and Akira Watanabe. Special thanks go to Irene Heim and Anna
Szabolcsi for their careful reading of the various versions of this work and for the patience they
showed towards my clumsy use of formal semantics.
^The properties that I am concerned with here do not distinguish between May's derivational
model and a representational one, such as the Scope Assignment formalism (cf. Riemsdijk and
Williams (1981) and Williams (1986)): the new principles proposed here modify them both. For
ease of convenience the QR formalism will be used.
^Rule (3) brings to mind Heim's (1982, p. 133) rule of Quantifier Construal, by which
quantifiers (i.e., nominal determiners) are attached as leftmost immediate constituents of S.
According to Heim, Quantifier Construal applies to "strong" determiners such as every, but not to
indefinites (although Heim does not discuss the other "weak" determiners, she would probably
have treated them on a par with the indefinite article). As will be shown below, DR raises both
weak and strong determiners.
3
In line with Cardinaletti and Giusti (1990), and unlike Abney (1987), I assume that many is an
X element generated under Det rather than a Quantified Phrase.
4
For the purposes of the present discussion the DP hypothesis is not crucial; it is likely that DR
could have been proposed in the absence of the DP hypothesis. This is why I will use the label
NP for the constituent that is currently referred to as DP.
What does QR raise? 243
The rule of DR defined in (3) is the LF counterpart of the rule that operates at Sstructure in French (see Obenauer (1984-1985)):5
(4)
a. J'ai beaucoupj lu [ei die livres].

I have much/manyj read ei of books
b. Combienj as-tu lu [ej de livres]?
how much/manyj have you read ej of books
The evidence that I will provide in favour of the rule stated in (3) does not count as
evidence against (2). Rather, DR and QR should be viewed as different
instantiations of the rule Move that applies in the mapping between S-structure
and LF. Following Heim (1982), I will assume that QR represents in fact NPPrefixing (NPR(aising) henceforth), a rule which moves all-and not only
quantified-NPs and adjoins them to S.6
The present proposal raises an obvious question: Why do English, Romanian,
etc. not present the S-structure rule illustrated in (4) for French? Although no
explanatory answer will be suggested here (see Azoulay (1985)), let me simply
mention two constraints that seem to govern DR at S-structure: (a) DR can apply
only if the preposition de is present; compare (4)a-b, where livres is preceded by
de, with the ungrammatical *j'ai deux lu livres have two read books'; (b) DR
cannot affect "heavy" elements: *j'ai deux kilos mang6 de pommes 'Ihave two kilos
eaten of apples'. If the present proposal is correct these constraints do not hold at
LF.
Part of the central empirical data to be analyzed below has already been
accounted for in Chapter 6: prepositional accusatives and clitic doubling force the
specific reading of cardinals. The framework adopted here will allow us to provide
a finer analysis of the various possible interpretations of NPs in general, and of
cardinals in particular. It will also be possible to account for the restrictions that
"weak" islands (wh-islands, negation, factives) impose on the interpretation of whphrases. According to Cinque's (1990) extension of Comorovski's generalization,
only referential wh-phrases can escape out of weak islands. This generalization will
be revised here: it will be shown that certain non-referential wh-phrases do escape
out of weak islands; the only interpretation that is blocked is the "amount" one, to
be defined below.
7. 2. LF representations and NP denotations
I will assume the null hypothesis, according to which LF rules affect both weak and
strong determiners. The resulting LF representations will be filtered by two kinds
^Note, however, that according to Obenauer, beaucoup is base-generated in its S-structure
position, attached to V, rather than moved from within the NP.
^The motivation for letting QR function as NPR is simply that "quantificational" features are not
marked on NP, but on (Spec, NP), and therefore the quantificational status of an NP can be
"seen" by a rule only if transmission of features has taken place, from (Spec, NP) to NP. Insofar
as May does not assume any kind of feature percolation, his QR cannot be sensitive to
quantificational properties, and therefore it will affect any kind of NP.
of wellformedness conditions: (a) semantic conditions, which check whether a

given LF representation is compatible with the semantic properties of a given
determiner; (b) syntactic conditions, which are identical to those that are
independently defined for purely syntactic phenomena.
The rules of NPR and DR give rise to clearly distinct LF representations, as
shown in (5 ) and (5"), respectively:
(5)
(5 )
(5")
John examined ten students.

[NPten studentsi] [John examined [Npei]]
[tenj] [John examined [Npei students]]
(NPR)
(DR)
7. 2. 1. DR + N'-incorporation: the amount reading

The exact landing site of DR will not be relevant here. One may assume either IPadjunction, on a par with QR, or CP-adjunction, on a par with Focus Movement.
For convenience I will assume IP-adjunction. 7 Note that in (4)a, however,
beaucoup appears lower, presumably in an adjunction position to VP; further
movement at LF may be assumed. Given the possibility of (4)a, it is reasonable to
assume that the LF rule of DR does not directly adjoin the determiner to IP, but
passes through an intermediate adjunction position to VP. This trace has not been
represented in (5 )-(5") for two reasons. First, in line with Chomsky (1989, 1992),
I assume that intermediate links of chains are invisible at LF; in other words, they
do not translate as variables, but should instead be viewed as meaningless, dummy
elements, that play no role in semantic composition. Second, the syntactic
constraints that will be shown to be relevant for DR apply in the same way in (5")
and in the more complex representation with an intermediate trace.
Note now that an LF such as (5") cannot be interpreted by the rules of semantic
composition: DR gives rise to an "open" NP, which as such denotes a predicate
rather than an individual; or, a predicate cannot occupy an argument position, as it
does in (5"). I will assume that this uninterpretable representation can be rescued by
a further operation, namely the incorporation of N' into the verb:
(52) a. [teni] [John examined [NPei students]]
(DR)
b. [tenj] [John studentj-examined [NP eiej]]
(N'-incorporation)
c. 'John examined students. Their number was ten'.
'John student-examined and the cardinality of the student-examined set is
ten.'
'Ten is the number/quantity in which John student-examined.'
'The number of students that John examined was ten'.
The predicate corresponding to N' combines with the predicate of the clause, which
has as a result a complex predicate, e.g. to student-examine. The split empty
category resulting from DR and this incorporation process does not count as an
7
It is currently assumed that X elements can only adjoin to X elements, a condition that rules
out the representation in (5"). Thus, we are led to assume that this constraint, which has been
questioned even for overt S-structure movement (see Riemsdijk (1989)), is not active at LF.

individual variable. I believe that this analysis opens the way towards an
explanation of the "detransitivized" reading referred to in the recent literature (de
Hoop (1992)). According to this view, detransitivization should not be interpreted
literally to mean that the direct object position disappears at S-structure: DR and N'
incorporation will both leave traces which are syntactically relevant.
Detransitivization should rather be taken to mean that the argument corresponding
to the direct object is not interpreted as "referentially individuated". I believe this is
due to the fact that the split empty category resulting from DR and incorporation
(see (5^)b) cannot be interpreted as an individual variable, but only as a nonindividualized prototypical object (see Chapter 5). The raised determiner functions
as some kind of adverb that modifies the complex predicate, or perhaps as a
quantity marker of the empty prototypical object associated with this predicate. The
paraphrases given in (52)c, which are maximally close to (5^)b itself, seem
adequate: John is reported to have been busy with student-examination (he has
examined an undifferentiated amount of students); the cardinality of this amount is
ten .
I take the amount reading to be comparable to the interpretation of mass nouns:
(6)
I used seven ounces of butter.
In (6) the action of using is not viewed as applying to every ounce of butter, but to
an overall quantity (namely seven ounces) of butter. Similarly, in (5^) the action of
student-examination is not viewed as applying distributively to each individual
student, but globally to the overall quantity of students (this kind of nondistributivity, or rather non-individualization, should not be confused with the
collective reading, on which the NP can be construed as a plural individual).
Depending on the type of noun, this kind of interpretation will be more or less
easy to grasp (mass nouns can be interpreted only in this way; at the other end of
the scale, humans are more difficult to treat as overall quantities), but countables
clearly allow for it:
(7)
a.
b.
c.
d.
I must read 300pages this week.

This child makes over 30 spelling mistakes per page.
You need at least 10 eggs for this cake.
They examined 30 candidates.
7. 2. 2. DR + NPR: the presuppositional and the existential readings

Another way of saving the LF in (5") is by raising the open NP (by NPR) to a
position where its predicate-type denotation can function as the restriction of the
raised determiner:
(5 3 )
a. [ten; [ [sJohn examined [NP e, studentsJ\

*
DR
I
b. [ten; [ [NP e, students]j [ s John examined /jyp e,/]]
t
NPR
1
(DR)
(NPR)
Note that the derivation in which the landing site of NPR is higher than the raised
determiner is to be ruled out as a case of improper movement (the trace of the
determiner inside the open NP would C-command the determiner). We are then left
with the possibility illustrated in (53)b, where the NP is raised in between the raised
determiner and the S constituent. This derivation itself relies on the assumption that
the relative hierarchical order of S-adjoined constituents is free (see May (1977)).
One may wonder whether the LF shown in (53) could not be derived by NPR
followed by DR (see Heim's (1982) proposal for strong quantifiers such as every):
(5"') a. 0[tenj [NP e, students]j [ s John examined
^DRI *
NPR
[ffp]
(NPR+DR)
I will assume that this derivation is illegitimate (as indicated by the diamond): in its
adjunction position, the NP is not L-marked, and therefore it constitutes a barrier
for the raising of the determiner.8 Note that this is a case in which a derivational
model rather than a representational model seems to be needed: indeed, the
representation in (5'") does not differ from that in (53)b; it is only their derivations
that are distinct.
Coming back to (53)b, it has the format of restricted quantification. I assume
that the second part of the formula, i.e., the open NP, translates as the restriction,9
and the third part as the scope of the existential quantifier, which is necessarily
associated with D-Raised cardinal determiners. The corresponding reading involves
existential quantification over a set variable, with the raised determiner interpreted
as a cardinality marker of the set variable: "There is a set X of individuals (where
is a student) such that John examined x, and the cardinality of X is ten".10
According to the LF representation in (53)b, the sentence in (5) is true if (a)
there is an indeterminate number of students and (b) (at least) ten of them were
examined by John. The sentence is false if condition (b) fails; if condition (a) fails,
the sentence is either false or indeterminate, (i.e., lacks a truth value).11 This type of
reading can be referred to as "partitive" or "presuppositional", due to the condition
stated in (a): a presuppositional NP carries the presupposition that the set denoted
by N' is not empty, see de Jong and Verkuyl (1985) and de Jong (1987); thus, on
the presuppositional reading, the example in (5) presupposes the existence of a
8
This goes against Fiengo, Huang, Lasnik and Reinhart (1989), who assume that phrases
occupying A'-positions do not function as barriers (for discussion I refer the reader to the quoted
source).
9ln Dobrovie-Sorin (1992) I tried to argue that DR + NPR necessarily gives rise to unrestricted
quantification: as a result of DR the determiner is no longer a sister of N', and therefore N' would
no longer count as the restriction of the determiner. I now think that this is not correct: the format
of restricted quantification does rely on DR (see Heim (1982)). It is only the LF corresponding to
the referential reading that does not involve DR.
10
The analysis of cardinals (and indefinites) as denoting sets with the determiner functioning as a
cardinality marker for the set is currently assumed in formal semantics (Bartsch (1973), Scha
(1981), Keenan (1987) and Reinhart (1987)). My own proposal is the hypothesis that this
currently assumed semantic representation relies on a particular LF representation.
11
The choice between the two possibilities varies from one semantic model to another, with no
consequence for our present purposes.
group of students; it is asserted that the predicate "having been examined by John"
holds of part of them. 12
The proposed analysis of (53)b relies on a correlation between the format of
restricted quantification and the presuppositional reading, which I will not try to
motivate. Let me simply quote Hausser (1974), who assumes it on independent
grounds: "All quantifiers which have been determined to be existential
presupposition inducers will from now on be represented by means of restricted
quantification".
Note now that (5^)b can be rewritten in the format of unrestricted quantification,
as shown in (5 4 ):
(5 4 )
a. [teni [ [NPej studentsjj [sJohn examined [NPeiJ]]

(DR + NPR)
b. [ten] 3 [student (x) & examined by John (x)] unrestricted quantification
c. There is a set X of individuals that are students and have been examined
by John, and the cardinality of the set is ten.
The move from (5 4 )a to (54)b is legitimate due to the semantic properties of the
raised determiner, namely the fact that it is symmetric. In (5)b student is not the
restriction of the determiner ten: the existential quantifier associated to ten binds a
set variable defined by the intersection of the set defined at the NP-level (the set of
students) with the set defined by the predicate (x: John examined x). 1 3 The
corresponding reading, let us call it "existential", would be "There are (is a set of)
ten individuals that are students and have been examined by John". This reading is
truth-conditionally different from the presuppositional one. Thus, it does not
presuppose the existence of a set of students, and therefore, on the existential
reading, example (5) may be true even if no set of students can be picked up from
context. Compare the presuppositional reading (see (53)b), on which example (5) is
false (or has no truth value) if no set of students can be identified in the context.
A short note is in order here, concerning the proposed "readings" of (53)b and
(5 4 ). It is probably not correct to assume that an example such as (5) "means" what
was stated as its readings. What we really want to say is that the presuppositional
12
An adequate context that would force the presuppositional reading of (5) is easy to provide;
e.g., Yesterday the professors of the English department examined 30 journalists, 20 students
and 40 retired people. John examined 10 students. The presuppositional reading is also
necessarily triggered by partitive NPs such as ten of the students, two of your children, etc. Given
the proposed framework, we would have to say that o/-phrases necessarily map into the restriction
of the determiner, but I leave the technical details for further inquiry. Note that partitives
constitute a problem for semantic frameworks such as those in Keenan and Stavi (1986) and
Keenan (1987). In order to account for the non-existential reading of partitives these authors have
to assume that two of the functions as a determiner (on a par with the, every,two, etc.), which is
at odds with the current syntactic analyses.
The rule of DR thus allows us to formalize an intuitive statement that can be found in
Reinhart (1987), for whom weak determiners operate on a clausal set (strong determiners would
instead operate on sets fixed at the NP-level). The analysis proposed here differs from Reinhart's
in that it allows for an "NP-level" interpretation of weak determiners: this reading corresponds to
those LF representations that rely on NPR alone, and therefore assume the format of "restricted
quantification". To summarize, a determiner operates on a clausal set if the relevant LF has the
format of unrestricted quantification.
and existential readings of (5) are truth-conditionally equivalent to the paraphrases

indicated for (53)b and (54), respectively.
7. 2. 3. NPR: the referential reading
Let us now compare the reading associated with (5 3 )b and that corresponding to
(5 ), which presents a closed NP, i.e., an NP whose determiner stays inside NP,
and thus saturates the open position associated with the predicate expressed by N'
(see Higginbotham (1987)). (5') is repeated as (51):
(5 )
fNPten studentsi] [John examined [NPei]]
(NPR)
It is natural to assume (8):

(8)
Closed NPs denote individuals.
This means that closed NPs are necessarily associated with the referential reading
defined as in (9):
(9)
Referential NPs are NPs that denote individuals.
According to this proposal, the referential reading is assigned to NPs that may have
been affected by NPR, but not by DR, nor by DR + NPR (both DR and DR +
NPR give rise to open NPs). Let me stress that the referential reading does not
depend on the application of NPR: referential NPs may be assumed to stay in situ,
unless scope properties force us to assume NPR. Thus, given the evidence
examined in this chapter, there is no need to assume NPR for the referential
interpretation of (5). The only reason I assume it here, is to stress the fact that LF
movement does not necessarily give rise to a quantificational, non-referential
interpretation. However, if for independent reasons, NPR must be blocked, the
referential reading would still be available (unless a derivation relying on DR
obtains). I take the Weak Cross Over effect to be a test for "(non-)referentiality".
This test should correlate with other well-known observations concerning the
consequences non-referentiality has on entailments (failure of the law of the
excluded middle, failure of the law of contradiction, etc.).
Note that the notion of referentiality used here should be kept distinct from the
pragmatic notions of specificity or D-linking, although certain correlations can be
established, as discussed in the following sections.
A possible paraphrase of the referential reading associated with (5l) is "having
been examined by John is a property of ten individuals who are students". This
means that the sentence is true iff (a) there are ten individuals, J, M,... (b) who are
students and (c) who have the property of having been examined by John. The
sentence is false if any of the conditions stated in (a)-(c) is not met. It is interesting
to note that the truth values of (5l) can be established by simply calculating the
denotation of the NP ten students, and by checking whether the set denoted by the
predicate was examined by John belongs to the set of sets denoted by ten students.
This is possible because this NP is closed, and therefore interpreted as denoting an
individual (or a conjunction of individuals). It is quite clear that the LF

representations in (5^) and (5^) cannot be assigned truth values in the same way.
The framework proposed here thus allows us to distinguish between referential
NPs and presuppositional 14 NPs: the former are closed NPs at LF (and
correspondingly denote an individual), whereas the latter appear in LFs
characterized by the format of restricted quantification15 (and correspondingly are
interpreted as presupposing that the N' set is not empty). It is important to point out
that diese two readings are not truth-conditionally equivalent: thus, if ten individuals
cannot be picked up from the context, (5) is false (or fails to have a truth value)
under the referential reading, but may be true or false under the presuppositional
reading.
Summary
In the foregoing discussion, it has been proposed that there exist four possible
types of LF representations, corresponding to four distinct derivations: NPR; DR;
DR + NPR (restricted quantification); DR + NPR (unrestricted quantification).
Each of these LFs differs from the other three, by at least one of three criteria: (i)
presence/absence of open NPs; (ii) presence/absence of individual variables; (iii)
the format of restricted or unrestricted quantification.
Anticipating the conclusions of Section 7.3.2, let me mention a still different
type of LF representation, that corresponding to bare quantifiers:
(10)
a. John met somebody.

b. somebody [John met e]
(NPR)
It will be shown that although the LF representation associated with bare quantifiers
does not involve an open NP (bare quantifiers are not subject to DR), it does
involve unrestricted quantification. This indicates that bare quantifiers function as
operators rather than referential NPs.
These results are summarized in (11):
l^The term "presuppositional" (as opposed to cardinal/existential) can be found in Diesing

(1990), who exploits the relation between restricted quantification and the presuppositional
reading. For Diesing the paradigmatic case of restricted quantification is that of VP-external
subjects; another obvious configuration is that resulting from QR or rather NPR. The proposal
developed here differs from Diesing's in assuming that unrestricted quantification depends on DR
(by way of consequence, the cardinal or existential readings necessarily correspond to LFs
obtained via DR (+NPR)). My analysis thus imposes more constraints on unrestricted
quantification, which allows us to explain why the cardinal interpretation does not arise in certain
contexts. I am also able to distinguish between the referential and presuppositional
interpretations, which does not seem to be possible within Diesing's framework.
^Reinhart (1987) observes that the restrictive term can be directly established at S-structure,
regardless of DR: in (42), where DR has not applied, N' would nevertheless count as the
restrictive term of the quantifier. Contra Reinhart, I assume that N' functions as a restriction only
if the determiner has raised at LF. In case the raising of the determiner is blocked, the NP will be
closed off and therefore, by virtue of (9)b, will be assigned an individual-type denotation; no
quantifier, and therefore no restriction, is generated in this case.
(11)
LFs
NPR
DR
(i) open NPs

(ii) individ. var.
(iv) (un)restr. Q
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
unrestr. Q restr./ unrestr. Q
16
DR + NPR
NPR of bare Q
NO
YES
unrestr. Q
The chart in (12) summarizes the correlations between LF configurations and

interpretations:
(12)
NPR
DR+NPR (restricted quantification)
DR+NPR (unrestricted quantification)
DR
referential
presuppositional
existential
amount
It was proposed that weak NPs are compatible with four LF configurations, and
correlatively present four distinct interpretations. This differs from current semantic
analyses, which assign only one reading, namely the existential one, to weak NPs.
In addition to the differences in truth-conditions already pointed out, there are wellknown syntactic tests that distinguish between the various readings. Thus, both
presuppositional and existential NPs give rise to Weak Cross Over violations,
whereas referential NPs do not. There-contexts, on the other hand, provide us with
a test that distinguishes between presuppositional and existential NPs: only the
latter are allowed in there contexts. At this point in the discussion, the difference
between the existential and the amount interpretations seems speculative, but it will
become clearer when weak islands will be discussed (see Section 7. 7.): it will be
shown that weak islands do not block the non-referential reading in general (they
block neither the existential nor the presuppositional readings), but only the amount
reading.
7. 3. Locality conditions on DR
So far, it has been established that the DR hypothesis provides us with a
framework which is able to assign four distinct LF representations to weak NPs 17 ,
underlying a four-wise difference in interpretation (referential, presuppositional,
existential and amount). Evidence in favour of DR can be given by showing that it
obeys the general constraints of syntax. If the DR of a weak determiner is blocked,
NPR alone will be possible. The prediction made under the present account is that
the presuppositional, existential and amount readings of weak NPs are blocked in
l^The dash indicates that NPR does not rely on either restricted or unrestricted quantification (see
footnote 15).
17
Obenauer (1992a,b) gives independent syntactic evidence - based on the French "complex
inversion" and the past participle agreement - in favour of the idea that weak NPs give rise to at
least two distinct LF representations, comparable to my open and closed NPs.
this case; only the referential reading, corresponding to (5l), is expected to be

observed.
7.3. 1. Prepositional accusatives and DR
The paradigm illustrated in (13)-(15) for Romanian characterizes other languages
that present prepositional accusatives, such as Spanish (see Jaeggli (1982)) and
Hebrew. As far as I know, the analysis I will propose for (13)-(15) extends to
these languages:
(13) a. Ion a examinat pe cineva, dar nu ftiu pe cine.
John examined pe somebody but I do not know pe whom
b. Ion n-a examinat [pppe [Npn/mem]].
John not-has examined [PP pe [NP nobody]]
(14) a. Am ihtilnit un prieten.
[I] met a friend
b. Caut secretar.
I am looking for a secretary
c. Fiecareprofesor va examina [Npirei studenffl.
each professor will examine three students
(15) a. Am intilnitpe un prieten.18
I met pe a friend
b. Caut pe secretar.
I am looking for pe a secretary
c. Fiecare profesor va examina [pppe [NP trei studenfi]i],
each professor will examine [pppe [Npthree students!]]
(ambiguous)
(referential)
These examples all involve quantified NPs (QNPs) in the direct object position; in
(13) and (15) the QNP is preceded by the "dummy" preposition pe (compare a in
Spanish, cf. Jaeggli (1982)). Examples (13) show that the preposition is allowed
(and even obligatory for humans) with bare quantifiers. The pair (14)-(15) indicates
that with indefinites and cardinals the use of prepositional accusatives forces the
referential reading; the prepositional accusatives in (15)a-c are interpreted as
denoting individuals: "there is a friend and I met him; there is a secretary and I am
looking for her; there are three individuals (John, Mary and Pat) who are students
and each professor will examine them".
The correlation between prepositional accusatives and referentiality (currently
refeired to as "specificity") is a well-known, though poorly understood, empirical
18
The grammaticality judgments indicated in (15) are not shared by all speakers (this is true for
both Romanian and Spanish). For some speakers, examples (15) are ungrammatical (for a
suggestion as to why this holds, see footnote 23). The insertion of a doubling clitic does not
improve acceptability: those speakers who reject (15)a-b also reject their counterparts with
doubling clitics. The description of the data is complicated by the fact that in contemporary
Romanian the clitic doubling of prepositional accusatives has become almost obligatory (it was
optional at the beginning of the century). Therefore, the examples in (15) sound somewhat
archaic; I discuss them here because I try to separate the interpretive constraints imposed by
prepositional accusatives from those due to clitic doubling.
generalization. In what follows it will be shown that the DR hypothesis provides us

with an explanation. Before embarking upon this task it should be stressed that the
allowed reading is the referential, and not the presuppositional one. To prove this
point it is sufficient to observe that partitive NPs, which are known to be
presuppositional, are compatible with different readings, depending on the use of a
prepositional accusative:
(16) a. ?? Mama eii va ajuta [una din studentele tale]j.
mother her will help one of your students
b. Mama eij va ajuta pe [una din studentele talejj.
Example (16)a shows that partitives give rise to a Weak Cross Over violation. This
indicates that partitives are not referential. No violation can be observed in (16)b,
where the prepositional accusative is used. This minimal pair shows that it is
referentiality rather than presuppositionality that is triggered by prepositional
accusatives. This observation differs from most of the recent analyses of
indefinites, which distinguish the specific/D-linked/presuppositional reading from
the nonspecific/non-D-linked/existential one (see Pesetsky (1987), Diesing (1990),
(1990), Dobrovie-Sorin (1990), among others). This imprecise, voire incorrect,
characterization may be due to a conversational implicature: the referential reading
informally implies the D-linked reading: 19 thus, the referential reading of one
student suggests that the designated individual belongs to a larger group of
students, which constitutes common knowledge between the speaker and hearer.
Why, then, are prepositional accusatives necessarily assigned the referential
reading? Within the framework proposed above, the different readings of weak
NPs rely on different LF representations: NPR, DR + NPR (restricted and
unrestricted) and DR underlie the referential, presuppositional/existential and
amount interpretations, respectively. Given this framework, one can explain the
obligatory referential interpretation of prepositional accusatives by showing that the
LF relying on NPR is legitimate, and the LFs relying on DR + NPR and DR + N'incorporation are illegitimate by virtue of general principles.
Let us then examine the LFs resulting from NPR, and DR:
(151) a. [stNPun prieten]i [samintilnit [pppeei]]]
(152) a. 0[S [unj] [sam intilnit [pppe [NP ej prieten]]]
NPR
DR
The LF in (151), obtained by applying NPR, is legitimate: pe NP is a direct object,

and as such it is L-marked by the verb, hence NP can move out of the PP headed
by pe. Since (151) presents a closed NP, the corresponding reading is the referential
one. We thus reach the conclusion that prepositional accusatives are compatible
with the referential reading. To show that this is the only possible reading, we must
show that the other LF representations are illegitimate. And indeed, (152) is illicit,
as already indicated by the diamond, due to an ECP violation: the trace of the raised
should be stressed that in this case, D-linking is not related to the presuppositional reading
(recall that the presuppositional reading relies on restricted quantification, whereas the referential
reading does not rely on quantification).
determiner is neither th-governed, nor antecedent-governed, because DR crosses a

barrier (the NP set in bold characters, which is not L-marked by pe). 2 0 Since DR is
illegitimate, any further operation - NPR or N'-incorporation - is blocked. In other
words, the derivations DR + NPR and DR + N'-incorporation are both ruled out.
Given the correlations listed in (12), the illegitimate nature of these derivations21
explains why none of the non-referential readings (presuppositional, existential,
amount) is available for prepositional accusatives 2 2
Compare examples (14): in the absence of pe, the object NP is L-marked by the
verb, and therefore DR does not cross any barrier:
(14 2 ) a. [S[un]j [Sam intflnit [NP eiprieten]]]
This LF representation is legitimate, and therefore DR+NPR and DR+N'incorporations are also legitimate. This explains why the presuppositional,
existential and amount readings are all available for (14).
The present analysis of prepositional accusatives makes the following interesting
prediction for a language that would present both prepositional accusatives and an
S-Structure rule of DR of the type illustrated in (4) for French: the latter should be
allowed with non-prepositional accusatives, but not with prepositional
accusatives. 23 This is exactly the case of Bengali, as I was informed (p.c.) by
Dasgupta (see Dasgupta (1988)).
2
^The fact that the NP is not L-marked is enough to rule (15 2 ) out. But note that extraction out
of NPs obeys an even stronger requirement, namely canonical government by the verb (see
Appendix and Pollock (1989)).
^Recall that the derivation NPR+DR was also ruled out previously (see the discussion of (5'")).
22
A s mentioned in footnote 19, certain speakers reject examples like (15) altogether. We must
assume that for these speakers weak quantifiers are obligatorily subject to either DR alone or DR
+ NPR; for those speakers who accept (15), weak quantifiers may also be affected by NPR alone.
23
Note also that in Romanian the NPs governed by pe (and in fact by any kind of preposition)
constitute barriers for the relation between the Genitive clitic attached to the verb and its trace,
which occupies the (Spec, NP) position characteristic of Genitives [the clitic in (i) is marked with
the Dative-Genitive morphological Case; the hypothesis that this clitic is Genitive rather than
Dative can be found in Steriade (1980) and Dobrovie-Sorin (1987):
(i)
a. Ij-am vzutfj^pprofesorulei].
(I) Genhimi-have seen [NPthe teacher ei]
saw his teacher.'
b. *Ij (l)-am vzut [pppe [NP profesortj]]
(I) Genhimj (himAccus)-have seen [pppe [NP teacher ej]]
saw his teacher.'
A similar construction exists in French, which is also blocked by the presence of dummy (and
lexical) prepositions:
(ii) a. J'enj ai rencontr6 [l'auteur ej]
I its have met the author
met its author.'
b. * J'enj ai 6crit [pp [Q^l'auteur ei]]
I its have written to the author
The analogy between the movement of determiners at LF and the S-Structure movement
illustrated in (i)-(ii) may be questioned, since genitives and determiners are not constituents of the
same type (they are XPs and X, respectively). However, the movement of genitives and that of
To sum up, the proposed account provides an explanation for a well-known

generalization, according to which prepositional accusatives are associated with the
specific, more precisely referential, interpretation of indefinites and cardinals. A
number of recent studies dealing with various languages (see in particular
(1991) for Turkish and de Hoop (1992) for Dutch) have pointed out that this effect
is also triggered by morphological accusative Case 24 (as opposed to unmarked
accusatives), but there the correlation is stated rather than explained. In order to
extend our account of prepositional accusatives to morphological accusatives we
must assume that L-marking by the verb is blocked by morphological Case. It may
be suggested that morphological Case functions as inherent Case. Since inherent
Case is directly associated with a certain th-role (Chomsky (1981)),
morphologically marked accusatives are assigned Case by virtue of being assigned
a th-role. However, they are not L-marked by the verb, if we define L-marking in
terms of the structural relation necessary for the assignment of structural Case.
Let us now consider the behaviour of bare quantifiers illustrated in (13), repeated
under (17):
(17)
Ion a examinat [pppe [NPc/neva]].

John has examined [pp pe [NP somebody]]
By applying DR to (17) we obtain (18), which is illicit for the reasons already
discussed above (when pe is present, NP constitutes a barrier for the raising of any
of its subparts):
(18) 0[cine]i Ion a examinat [pppe [ ei va]]
Osome [John examined [pppe [x person]]
If (18) were the correct representation for (17) we would expect this example to be
ungrammatical (because (18) is illicit) but this is not the case. Since (17) is fully
grammatical we must assume that DR does not apply to subconstituents of bare
quantifiers.25
Since DR does not apply, the only legitimate LF representation of examples
such as (17) is (19), obtained through NPR:
determiners are comparable insofar as both elements are subconstituents of an NP; moreover, even
if the movement of genitives is assumed to leave an NP-trace, the moved constituent is a clitic,
i.e., an X category.
24
This generalization seems to be subject to variation across languages: as pointed out to me by
Anna Szabolcsi, Hungarian presents morphologically marked accusatives which seem to be able
to function nonreferentially (they may incorporate to the verb).
25
I do not think that the morphological unanalyzability of nimeni 'nobody' and nimic 'nothing'
(ni may be analyzed as a negative prefix, but -meni is neither a free nor a bound morpheme; mic
may be related to the adjective mic 'small') can be invoked as an explanation for the fact that DR
does not apply. Thus, analyzable pronouns such as the English notxxly and nothing do not seem
to allow the DR of no.
(19)
[NPcinevai] [Ion a examinat [pppe ei]
This representation involves a closed NP, which as such should be interpreted as

referential. However, bare quantifiers give rise to Weak Cross Over violations,
which indicates that they function as non-referential:
(20) *Mama luij a ajutat pe cinevaj.
Hisj mother helped somebodyi.
Correlatively, bare quantifiers cannot be clitic-doubled, whereas referential NPs
(see in particular prepositional accusatives) may:
(21) a. *Ion li-a examinat [pppe [Npcineva]i]
b. Am intilnitpe un pneten.
( = (17) + clitic-doubling)
I met pe a friend
c. L-am intilnit pe un pneten.

I him met pe a friend
(21') a. [pppe cinevaj] [Ion li-a examinat ei]

It has already been established above that (21)b is necessarily assigned the
referential reading. The grammaticality of (21)c indicates that referential NPs can be
clitic-doubled. The ungrammaticality of (21)a, which contrasts with the
grammaticality of (21)c, shows that bare quantifiers do not function as referential
NPs, but rather as operators.
To sum up the foregoing discussion, DR does not affect bare quantifiers (this
has been established on the basis of the distribution of pe). The only legitimate LF
derivation is the one given in (19), obtained through NPR, which is not affected by
the blocking effect of pe. The tests of Weak Cross Over and clitic doubling indicate
on the other hand that bare quantifiers function as operators rather than referential
NPs. This observation can be captured by assuming that cineva translates as the
existential quantifier. (19)rewritesas (19'):
(19') 3 [John examined x].
The remaining difficulty concerning (19)-(19') is that we must assume that "person"
does not function as a restriction of the quantifier; we may instead assume that
cineva 'somebody' is marked with the feature [+human].
Conclusions
To conclude this section, let me briefly compare the present account in terms of DR
with the two-step procedure implemented in Chapter 6 (qu-features percolation
followed by QR). As the reader may easily verify, the two-step procedure also
provides a correct account of much of the relevant data.
There are, however, certain important differences concerning the analysis of
empirical phenomena. In Chapter 6 weak NPs were shown to be compatible with
two distinct LF representations (QR could affect them or not, depending on qufeatures percolation), corresponding to DR + NPR and NPR, within the DR
framework developed here. In addition, however, it is now possible to postulate a
third type of representation, namely that relying on DR + N'-incorporation, which
underlies the "amount" reading. The distinction between DR + NPR and DR + N'incorporation is a welcome result, because it captures empirical differences
concerning both the relevant interpretations and the locality conditions to which
these two types of structures are subject (see Section 7. 7., where weak islands are
discussed).
According to the current semantic analyses, cardinal NPs are treated as
involving quantification over set variables with the determiner indicating the
cardinality of the set (see (Bartsch (1973), Scha (1981), Keenan (1987) and
Reinhart (1987)). This kind of higher order quantification can be correlated with the
LF resulting from DR + NPR (see Dobrovie-Sorin (1993)). However, the
implementation relying on -features percolation followed by QR was interpreted
as first order quantification, i.e., as quantification over individual variables. It
remains to be seen whether higher order quantification could be used within this
framework.
Note finally that if we correlate quantification over set variables to DR + NPR,
we obtain the correct result that bare quantifiers such as somebody and nobody
cannot give rise to quantification over sets, but only to quantification over
individuals. This difference between bare quantifiers and cardinals allows us to
account for empirical differences between these types of NPs, regarding their
behaviour in weak island contexts. Such differences are more difficult to capture
within the framework developed in Chapter 6: we should postulate distinct
interpretation rules to bare quantifiers and to NPs that bear percolated qu-features.
Other differences between the two approaches are theory-internal. Thus,
according to the proposal developed in Chapter 6, the impossibility of doubling
clitics in certain quantificational configurations derives from the hypothesis that
variables need Case. This requirement is stipulative because it is difficult to
understand why variables need Case.26 According to the proposal developed here,
the possibility of clitic-doubling is not related to Case theory, but depends on
whether the doubled NP can be assigned the referential interpretation. It is natural to
assume (22)a-b, from which the generalization in (23) follows:
(22) a. Non-referential NPs cannot be assigned pronominal features,
b. A clitic imposes its pronominal features on the doubled NP.
(23)
26It
Non-referential NPs cannot be clitic-doubled.
is not clear why an empty category could not inherit the Case "absorbed" by the clitic that
identifies it, or the Case assigned to the wh-phrase itself (see *pe cinej lj-ai vzut ej'pe whom
him-have [you] seen e', where the wh-phrase is Case-marked by pe). In addition, the Case
requirement does not seem to apply to all the elements that one might want to define as variables.
Thus, one may assign the label "pronominal variable" to the empty categories resulting from
NPR (recall however, that bare quantifiers present a special behaviour; they in fact bind nonpronominal variables). It should then be stipulated that the Case requirement concerns only nonpronominal variables (the term "variable" used in Chapter 6 should be understood as meaning
"non-pronominal variable"; Borer (1984) is correct in saying that variables do not need Case if by
"variable" we mean "pronominal variable").
7. 3. 3. Other quantified pronouns

It is interesting to compare bare quantifiers such as nimeni 'nobody', cineva
'somebody', oricine 'anybody' with quantified pronouns such as unul/una
'onefem/masc, niciunul/niciuna 'none, noonemasc/fem
(24) a. In coala asta sint 10 profesori de englez, dar din pcate nu-(l) apreciez
pe niciunul.
in this school there are 10 English teachers, but unfortunately I do not(him) appreciate pe none
b. In coala asta sint 10profesori de englez; ieri (l')-am intilnitpe unul.
in this school there are 10 English teachers; yesterday I (him)-have met pe
one
(25) a. *In coala asta sint 10 profesori de englez, dar din pcate nu apreciez
niciunul.
in this school there are 10 English teachers, but unfortunately I do not
appreciate none
b. *In fcoala asta sint 10 profesori de englez; ieri am intilnit unul.
in this school there are 10 English teachers; yesterday I have met one
(26) a. Am auzit c existprofesori buni dar din pcate -am intilnit niciunul in
viafa mea.
[I] have heard that there exist good teachers but unfortunately I have not
met none ('any') in my life
b. Ion caut dou secretare gi eu caut una.
John is looking for two secretaries and I am looking for one
(27) a. *Am auzit c exist profesori buni dar din pcate nu (l)-am intilnit pe
niciunul in via/a mea.
I have heard that there exist good teachers but unfortunately I (him)-have
not met pe none in my life
b. *Ion caut dou secretare i eu (o) caut pe una.
John is looking for two secretaries and I am (her) searching pe one
As opposed to nimeni, cineva and oricine, pronouns such as (nici)unul are not
obligatorily preceded by pe, even when they refer to humans27 (see (26)). What we
need is to establish the difference between nimeni and niciunul, which explains the
difference concerning the distribution of pe, by assuming a unitary analysis of pe.
Niciunul also differs from nimeni insofar as it is interpreted with respect to a set
defined by some nominal head which is obvious in the discourse: to put it in
somewhat simplified terms, niciunul means nici-un copil/student 'no child/ student',
etc., depending on the context. In order to account for this interpretation, we must
assume that niciunul does not function as a bare quantifier, but may function as
27
This indicates that it is incorrect to say that direct object pronouns marked [+human] are
obligatorily preceded by pe (see Farkas (1978)). We may then wonder what the real generalization
is. The remarks that follow build on the idea that pe is necessary with [+human] pronouns
whenever pe is possible: pe can be absent only if it must be so (the non-presuppositional/
existential interpretation is imposed in certain contexts, and this would conflict with the presence
of pe).
either closed (referential) or open (non-referential/quantificational) depending on the

application of DR.
Let us now return to examples (24)-(26). In (24)a the preposition pe is present,
and according to our analysis this means that the negative quantifier cannot be Draised; as a consequence, the quantified pronoun in (24)a counts as closed, hence
referential, and as expected, a doubling ctic is grammatical. The meaning of (24)a
matches with this representation: "it is not true that the property be appreciated by
me belongs to the set of properties denoted by Popescu, Ionescu, etc.", where
Popescu, Ionescu,... are ten English teachers in the school.
Examples (25) show that the preposition is obligatory. In order to explain this
observation we must assume that (a) in the absence of pe, DR obligatorily applies,
and correlatively an existential, presuppositional or amount interpretation arises, and
(b) the existential, amount and presuppositional readings give rise to
ungrammatically. The explanation for (b) concerns the principles that govern
discourse anaphora: the first sentence of examples (24)-(25) asserts the existence of
a set of English teachers, and the pronoun in the second sentence is forced to pick
up its reference with respect to this set. This discourse principle allows the
referential reading (which implies D-linking, as observed above) and disallows the
existential and amount readings. It is however less clear why the presuppositional
reading is impossible. Note that the presupposition corresponding to the
presuppositional reading of niciunul 'none of them' in (25) is: there is a set of
English teachers. But this proposition is asserted in the immediately preceding
context (in this school there are ten English teachers), which may give rise to a
cancellation of the presupposition of niciunul.
Let us now turn to (26). Since nothing blocks DR, this rule obligatorily applies
(see (a)). Only the relevant part of (26) has been represented in (26'); by replacing
empty categories with variables we obtain the LF in (26"):
(26') nicii [ei unul]j [-am intilnit ej in viaja mea]]
noi [ej one]j [I not-have met ej in my life]
(26") [for no x] [x is one] [I met in my life]
According to this representation, the set of individuals on which the quantifier
operates is defined at the clause level. The corresponding reading is existential/nonpresuppositional: "there is no individual [such that is unul [= a good teacher]
and I met x]". Example (27) is ungrammatical because pe blocks DR; this would
give rise to the referential interpretation, which may again be ruled out by principles
of discourse anaphora. The verb hear thai conversationally implies that the speaker
does not know of any particular set of individuals characterized by the predicate
good teacher. This implies that the speaker has not met any individual with the
property good teacher. The examples in (27) could then be ruled out by a principle
stating that if a particular linguistic expression implies a proposition P, that
proposition cannot be asserted in the linguistic context immediately following the
occurrence of the expression E.
In sum, quantified pronouns are accessible either to NPR (by which the whole
pronoun is raised) or to DR + NPR28 (by which a subpart of the pronoun is
28
The question as to whether quantified pronouns are accessible to DR alone is left open for
further research.
raised, followed by the NPR of the resulting open NP). Quantified pronouns differ
from quantified NPs in that they appear to obligatorily (and not only optionally) be
subject to DR + NPR. The paradigm in (24)-(27) shows that the interpretations
associated with the LFs that our analysis postulates match with the interpretive
restrictions imposed by a given linguistic context. Bare quantifiers differ crucially
from quantified pronouns: they cannot function as closed/referential or
presuppositional, even if they are not affected by DR.
7. 4. DR and wh-movement
In Chapter 6 it was shown that Romanian exhibits two types of wh-structures. It is
now possible to capture the difference between them by assuming that in one case,
but not in the other, the DR rule defined in (3) applies in the mapping between Sstructure and LF.
Consider first the weak wh-quantifier ce 'what':
(28) a. Ce roman ai citit?
what novel have (you) read
b. *Ce roman 1-ai citit?
what novel it-have (you) read
This data can be accounted for if we assume that ce 'what' is obligatorily raised by
DR. More precisely, (29)a-b are obtained by applying reconstruction of the whphrase into the -position, followed by DR, itself followed by NPR:29
(29) a. [S'[whati] [S'tNPei novel]i [s
[NPei]]30
?x [x: novel; you read x]
'what object is such that it is a novel and you read it?'
b. 0[S'[whati] [S'tNPei novel]i [S-.iti...[NPei]]
The ungrammaticality of (28)b is explained by the illegitimate nature of the

representation in (29)b: the D-raised determiner functions as an operator, and as
such it cannot be clitic-doubled (see (23)).
Let us now turn to the strong wh-quantifier care 'which':
(30) a. Pe care biat 1-ai vzut?
pe which boy him-have [you] seen
'Which boy did you see?'
b. *Pe care biat ai vzut?
29 D R alone is incompatible with the semantic properties of what N' (this quantifier must bind an
individual variable) but may apply to how many (see 7. 6. and 7. 7.3.2.).
30i t is not clear to which position the quantifier raises: since it is an X category, it cannot adjoin
to maximal projections such as S' (but this condition might not apply at LF).
I assume that because of its semantic properties, which cannot raise out of the whphrase.31 This means that representations of the type given in (29) are not available
for examples (30); only (30l), which relies on NPR, is legitimate:
(30l) a. [which boyj] [s' you saw[NPei]]
'Which (of these) boy(s) is such that you saw him?'
Since the wh-quantifier cannot be raised by DR, the wh-phrase is a closed NP, and
therefore counts as referential, 32 which as such is allowed to be clitic-doubled.
However, it is not clear why the variable must be clitic-doubled (see the
ungrammaticality of (30)b). The answer to this question must take into account
crosslinguistic data: in languages such as French, Spanish, etc. a doubling clitic is
not necessary (it is in fact excluded) with strong wh-phrases:
(31)
Quelle fillej as-tu rencontre ei ?

Which girl did you meet?'
7. 5. On the licensing of A'-bound empty categories

As shown in Chapter 6, the behaviour of Romanian cannot be explained on the
basis of the fact that this language allows clitic doubling: River Plate Spanish, for
example, presents this option, but nevertheless disallows clitic-doubling in whstructures. I will also discard as stipulative the idea that the Romanian care would
differ from which or lequel by its intrinsic semantic features. In Chapter 6,1 have
argued that the clitic doubling of wh-phrases was related to the absence of the "nulloperator" strategy. I now tum to a more precise implementation of this hypothesis.
TTie intuitive idea is that in Romanian the obligatory clitic is a licenser of the whtraces of strong wh-phrases. French, Spanish and English all have at their disposal
another means of licensing wh-traces, which is also active in the null-operator
strategy.
7. 5. 1. Null operators, wh-agreement and wh-configurations
Consider the currently assumed configuration of wh-structures:
(32)
1 More precisely, DR applies, but the resulting LF is filtered out due to the semantics of which.
T o speak of referential wh-phrases seems paradoxical. For further discussion see Sections 7.7.3.
and 7.7.4.
32
Given this structure, the wh-phrase under [Spec, C'] is only an indirect antecedent
of the wh-trace, the relation being mediated by C, marked with the [+WH] feature.
One may then assume that it is C[+WH]. rather than the wh-phrase itself, that is the
true licenser of the wh-trace. It is natural to assume that any C marked [+WH]
functions as an operator, and that operators license A'-bound empty categories.
It is well known that in English, French, Spanish, etc., the configuration in (32)
is legitimate regardless of the type of element that stands under [Spec, C']. There are
two relevant cases here: (a) null operators are allowed in [Spec, C'] and (b) no overt
agreement holds between wh-phrases and wh-traces (on "wh-agreement" see
Chung (1982). Romanian is characterized in the opposite way: (a') null operators
are not allowed, and (b') certain object wh-phrases trigger "wh-agreement", which
manifests itself as an accusative clitic doubling the wh-trace.
There are two ways in which the crosslinguistic pattern of variation could be
captured. We could assume that Romanian is characterized by the same structural
configuration as French or English. The difference would be due to a parameter
concerning the licensing of C:
(33) a. In English, French, etc. C is licensed structurally by [Spec, C'],
independently of the content of [Spec, C].
b. In Romanian, C is licensed only if it is "identified".
Possibly because of their lack of lexical content, null operators would not function
as identifiers of C. As to lexical wh-phrases, they would license C by agreement,
which would percolate down to the wh-phrase itself. This line of inquiry will be
abandoned here because (33) seems highly stipulative to me, and the
implementation itself does not seem obvious.
Let us then try to derive the above-mentioned crosslinguistic differences as a
consequence of a structural difference between wh-constructions. The suggestion
that I would like to make is that Romanian wh-constructions do not rely on
movement to [Spec, C] but rather on adjunction to IP:
(34) IP
Since adjunction positions are not projected by the base rules, it is reasonable to
assume that null elements, in particular null operators, cannot show up in adjunction
positions. This accounts for the lack of null operators in Romanian.
7. 5. 2. A'-licensers
An account of "wh-agreement", i.e., of the distribution of doubling clitics in whstructures, can be proposed if we restrict the class of A'-licensers as stated below:
(35) An empty category is not licensed by a closed NP that A'-binds it.
(36) An empty category is licensed by an operator that A'-binds it. Bare

quantifiers, determiners and C[+WH] count as operators.
(37) An empty category is licensed by a clitic.
Assuming the configuration in (34) and the negative principle in (35), the
ungrammaticality of Romanian (30)b is expected because there is no A'-licenser for
the empty category in the direct object position (a doubling clitic is therefore
necessary for the empty category to be licensed, see (37)). The French example in
(31) is correct because the empty category is licensed by C[+WH] (see the
configuration in (32)).
We can also understand why ce N' (what N') cannot be clitic doubled. Assuming
obligatory DR for ce, the relevant configuration is (38):
[xPjtDet.J
IP
In (38) the empty category is licensed by the D-raised determiner (determiners

count as operators, and as such they are able to license empty categories (see (36)).
Note that the clitic is not just optional, but it is excluded. The reason is by now
obvious: the raised determiner necessarily functions as an operator, and as such
cannot be clitic-doubled.
Returning to English and French, it is reasonable to assume that the LF
representations characteristic of Romanian also hold: in particular, what, but not
which, would be affected by DR. This supposed difference is obscured by the
configuration in (32) because the empty category is licensed by C[+WH]>
regardless of whether DR affects the wh-quantifier.
7. 5. 3. DR and bare wh-quantifiers
The contrast between (39) and (40) provides interesting evidence in favour of the
hypothesis that Romanian wh-quantifiers must raise out of the wh-phrase to which
they belong in order for the wh-trace to be licensed:
(39)
a. Ce elevj ai putea tu suporta ei?

what studenti could you put up with ei?
b. C?p' elevij ai putea tu suporta ei?
how many studentsi could you put up with ei?
(40) a. V.Pe ce elevj ai putea tu suporta ei?
pe what studenti could you put up with ei?
b. *Pe cip elevij ai putea tu suporta ej?
pe how many studentsi could you put up with ej?
The examples in (39) are grammatical because the variable in the direct object
position is licensed by the raised quantifier: ce 'what' is lexically characterized as
being accessible to DR and nothing blocks this rule; as a result of DR, ce Ccommands the wh-trace, hence binds and legitimates it. The only difference
between (39) and (40) being the presence of the preposition pe, it is possible to treat
(40) as a violation of the locality constraint on DR which we have already examined
when dealing with quantified NPs in situ (see the discussion of (15)):
(40') 0[s [cei] [sai putea tu suporta [pppe [Npej elev]]]
[S [whati] [scould you put up with [pppe [Npej student]]]
In (40') the DR of ce 'what' violates the ECP (antecedent government is blocked
because what crosses at least one barrier (the NP, which is not L-marked by pe)).
In other words, pe blocks the DR of ce out of the dominating PP, and consequently
the wh-phrase counts as a closed, i.e., referential, NP, which cannot license the
empty category in the direct object position (see (35)).
Consider now (41):
(41) Pe cine ai invitat?
pe who have (you) invited
(41') [s [cinei] [sai invitat [pppe [Npei]]
[S [whoi] [sdid (you) invite [pppe [Npei]]]
In (41') cine is a bare quantifier, hence there is no barrier that could block the NPR
of cine out of [pppe [Npcine]]. Since bare wh-quantifiers function as operators
(see (36)), they are able to license their wh-traces.
It is interesting to note that a clear parallelism exists between the behaviour of
bare wh-quantifiers and that of bare quantifiers in situ. Thus, in Section 7. 3. 2. the
conclusion was reached that DR does not apply to any subpart of bare quantifiers,
which are raised as a whole by NPR (hence the possibility of pe). However, bare
quantifiers in situ do not function as referential NPs: they give rise to Weak Cross
Over violations and do not allow clitic-doubling. These characteristics also hold for
bare wh-quantifiers (see Chapter 6). Correlatively, bare quantifiers function as
licensers of A'-bound empty categories.
7. 5. 4. Wh-strategies and the constituent structure ofS and S'
One may now raise a further question: Why does Romanian not use the Move wh
to [Spec, C'] strategy? A possible line of inquiry may be suggested, which takes
into account independent results, concerning the constituent structure of Romanian
sentential constituents. In Chapters 1 through 3 it was shown that the -position of
the NP subject is not the [Spec, I'] node, but a position internal to VP. [Spec, I'] is
an A'-position, which is available for left dislocated and topicalized constituents,
and possibly for wh-phrases as well. Hence, Move wh to [Spec, I'] could
conceivably be assumed instead of the adjunction analysis shown in (34) and (38).
Note that according to both of these hypotheses, C and [Spec, C'] are not activated
in Romanian wA-structures.
In sum, it has been proposed here that the ECP may be satisfied as late as LF.
The licensing of A'-bound empty categories appears to be more constrained than is
usually assumed. The standard assumption is that an A'-bound empty category is
licensed, no matter what the nature of the antecedent is, provided it is local.
According to the revision proposed above, A'-bound empty categories cannot be
licensed by closed, referential NPs. They must be bound either by an operator or by
a clitic. The present discussion is mainly concerned with direct objects; it may be
that for other empty categories the licensing conditions are more permissive (see
Appendix).
7. 6. Three LF representations for how many

Recall that in Section 7. 3. it was proposed that indefinites and cardinals are
compatible with three distinct types of LF representations, obtained by: (a) NPR;
(b) DR; (c) DR+NPR, respectively. Assuming that DR and NPR apply on
reconstructed wh-structures, we expect that how many wh-structures may be
assigned three distinct LF representations, on a par with examples like (5):
(42) How many booksj have you consulted ei?
(421) how many booksi have you consulted ei ?
(422) how manyi have you consulted ei books?
(423) [how manyj [[ej books]i have you consulted ei]]
(3-way ambiguous)
(reconstruction + NPR)
(reconstruction + DR) 33
(reconstr + DR + NPR)
Given the above discussion of Romanian wh-structures, we predict that LFs of the
type in (421) require the presence of doubling clitics. As to (42^) and (42^), they
are not overtly distinguished: in both cases a doubling clitic and the prepositional
marker will be disallowed, which indicates that the wh-phrase counts as nonreferential. In what follows it will be shown that the distinction is nevertheless
relevant for weak islands. The various possible interpretations of the LFs of (42)
will be made precise below; they will be shown to be parallel to the referential,
existential and amount readings already distinguished for weak NPs in situ.
Summary
The framework proposed here allows us to establish the following typology of LF
representations for wh-structures:
(43)
a.
b.
c.
d.
33
NPR (closed wh-phrases; D-linking)

DR (open wh-phrases; absence of individual variables; amount reading)
DR + NPR (open wh-phrases; individual variables; no D-linking)
NPR of bare quantifiers (operator; individual variables; no D-linking)
LFS of the type in (422) have already been assumed (Chomsky (1977), Heim (1987)). They
were supposed to be derived through the reconstruction of part of the wh-phrase. The rule of DR
provides a more principled derivation.
What does QR raise?
265
e. null operators (clefts)

In French and English, the differences between (43)a and (43)c are obscured,
perhaps even neutralized, by the fact that A'-bound empty categories are in any case
licensed by C[+WH]
7. 7. DR, referentiality and locality
Let us now see whether the typology of wh-structures established above sheds any
new light on the difference between "long" and "successive cyclic" A'-movement,
discussed in the recent literature (see in particular Cinque (1990) and Rizzi (1990)).
7. 7. 1. Rizzi's (1990) conditions on A'-movement
Arguments can move long distance (no sensitivity to "weak islands" is observed),
whereas adjuncts can only move short distance (they are sensitive to weak islands).
This difference is assumed to be due to a difference in the way the ECP is satisfied:
arguments are theta-governed by the verb, and therefore they need not be
antecedent-governed; adjuncts, on the other hand, are not theta-governed, and
therefore must be antecedent-governed. "Weak islands" are contexts in which
antecedent government is blocked. Rizzi (1990) observes that certain complements
of V (see in particular idiom chunks and measure phrases) behave on a par with
adjuncts (they are sensitive to weak islands), which indicates that theta-govemment
is not sufficient for the satisfaction of the ECP. This leads Rizzi (1990, p. 74) to
assume a conjunctive formulation of the ECP, which can be summarized as in (44).
The identification clause of the ECP34 can be satisfied in two distinct ways, as
stated in (44)b-c:
(44) a. A non-pronominal empty category must be (i) properly head-governed
(Formal licensing) and (ii) identified (content licensing).
b. An empty category can be identified via A'-binding iff it is assigned a
referential th-role.
c. Otherwise, an empty category is identified via antecedent-government.
Under this restatement the difference between long and short wh-movement is not
due to head-government (nor to theta-government), as opposed to antecedentgovernment, but rather to the difference between two types of identification, namely
A'-binding and antecedent-government. This means that with both long and short
movement the wh-trace must be licensed by virtue of a particular relation to the whphrase: antecedent government is one type of relation, A'-binding35 is the other one.
later sections of Relativized

Minimality Rizzi redefines the ECP exclusively in terms
Formal licensing. Under this restatement the identification clause remains unchanged, although it
is not assumed to be part of the ECP requirements.
35
Rizzi's notion of A'-binding is a subcase of what is standardly called "A'-binding" (as opposed
to A-binding).
A'-binding holds under C-command between two elements that bear the same
referential index; since movement does not create referential indices, they can only
be carried over. This means that we need a mechanism by which referential indices
are assigned to/licensed on NPs, which will take them along under A'-movement.
Rizzi assumes that referential indices are licensed by referential th-roles.36 Given
these assumptions, the only elements that can be A'-bound are those that are
assigned referential th-roles; if an empty category is not assigned a referential throle, it must be licensed by antecedent-government, which is blocked in weak island
contexts (by virtue of Rizzi's relativized minimality).
7. 7. 2. Reconstruction, DR and the locality of wh-movement
As observed by Cinque (1989, 1990), Dobrovie-Sorin (1988, 1991), Frampton
(1990), Kroch (1990) and others, certain interpretations of wh-phrases are sensitive
to weak islands. Rizzi (1990) cannot deal with this problem because in the relevant
cases a referential th-role is available. According to Cinque's (1990) refinement of
Rizzi's theory, referential wh-phrases are allowed to move long distance, as
opposed to non-referential wh-phrases, which must be antecedent-governed (this
generalization is illustrated by Longobardi's observations concerning the
reconstruction of scope, by Cinque's own observations concerning the Italian clitic
left dislocation and by Pesetsky's (1987) and Comorovski's (1989a, b) D-linking
phenomena).
One problem raised by Cinque's generalization is that we do not know exactly
how to define referential expressions: we may wonder what the various cases listed
above have in common37; we may even ask whether they can really be subsumed
by the notion of "referentiality" and whether they are all sensitive to exactly the
same type of locality conditions. Since we do not know what "referentiality" means,
it is better to avoid using referential properties as a primitive notion, i.e., as some
kind of abstract feature that would characterize linguistic elements.
According to my own account, referentiality is read off a particular LF
representation (that relying on closed NPs), and not attached to individual linguistic
36
The label "referential th-role" is probably not very felicitous, but the notion that it is intended
to denote seems clear to me, even if Rizzi (1990) does not provide a clear definition. I would like
to propose the following one: a referential th-role is one which allows the construction of a set of
individuals (the label "referential" th-role -which I use for convenience -is completely irrelevant,
and could be replaced by anything else, say "th-role 1"). Independently of their linguistic
environment, verbs such as see, eat, write, etc. suppose sets of individuals of the type "objects
that are seen/ eaten/ written". An empty category that instantiates the object position of these
verbs can then be viewed as an individual variable. Similarly, sets of individuals that are
measured/weighed can be defined; NPs such as a garden, a room, a child etc. can be viewed as
corresponding constants. However, "1 kilo, 2 kilos, 100 grams etc." or "1 meter, 2 meters, 3
centimeters, etc." cannot be viewed as constants obtained by an assignment of value to individual
variables of the kind just mentioned. It is also clear that idiom-chunks are not constants
corresponding to individual variables. Finally, it does not seem possible to construct sets of
individuals corresponding to subcategorized adverbials (ways of behaviour, places to go to or
places to stay at).
37
Cinque proposes certain tests, in particular pronominal anaphora, but these tests are not applied
to all of the types of non-referential NPs considered.
elements. Given this approach, it is possible to go beyond Cinque's descriptive

generalization towards an explanatory account by trying to answer the following
question:
(45) Why do weak islands block the non-referential interpretation of wh-phrases?
An answer to (45) involves the following steps: (a) decide which kind of LF
representation gives rise to the non-referential interpretation(s); (b) show that the
relevant LF configuration is blocked by weak islands.
An account along these lines can be found in Dobrovie-Sorin (1988,1991). The
central idea is that the non-referential (more precisely the amount) reading relies on
the application of DR at LF. As DR is known to be blocked by weak islands at Sstructure (see Obenauer (1984-1985) and Rizzi (1990)), we expect it to be blocked
at LF also; by way of consequence, the interpretations that depend on DR are
predicted to be unavailable in weak-island contexts.38
Consider examples (46)a-c:
(46) a. Combien de livresj as-tu consults ei?
How many booksi have you consulted ei?
b. Combien de livresj n'as-tupas consults ej?
How many booksj haven't you consulted ej?
c. Combien de livresj as-tu beaucoup consults ej
How many of booksi have-you much consulted ej?
The observation we try to explain is that the amount interpretation of the wh-phrase
is allowed in (46)a, but not in (46)b-c (all three examples allow the referential
interpretation; the less obvious non-referential/existential reading will be discussed
below). Assuming that the amount reading relies on (reconstruction followed by)
DR (see Section 7.3.3), we must explain why the LF relying on DR is illegitimate
in weak island contexts:
(461) a. how manyi have-you consulted ej of books?
b. Ohow manyj haven't you consulted ej of books?
c. Ohow manyi have-you much consulted ei of books?
The LFs in b-c are illicit for the same reason that Obenauer's (1984-1985) wellknown examples in (47)b-c are ungrammatical at S-structure:
(47) a. Combieni as-tu consultêj de livres?
how manyi have-you consulted ei of books?
b. * Combieni n'as-tu pas consuM ej de livres?
how manyi haven't you consulted ej of books?
c. * Combieni as-tu beaucoup consult6 ej de livres?
how manyi have-you much consulted ei of books?
38
This initial idea will be somewhat refined below. The sensitivity to weak islands will be
checked on the finer typology of wh-structures established in 7. 5. and 7. 6.
The ungrammatically of (47)b has been analyzed as an ECP violation (where the
ECP is defined in terms of relativized minimality) by Rizzi (1990): Tie is a minimal
antecedent which blocks the antecedent government relation between combien and
its deepest embedded trace (A'-binding cannot apply because the trace of combien is
not assigned a referential th-role, see (44)). For our present purposes it does not
matter whether this explanation is correct (for a semantic account of weak islands
see Szabolcsi and Zwarts (1990) and Szabolcsi (1992)). The crucial point is that
whatever explanation is chosen for (47)b-c will account for the illicit status of
(46l)b-c in exactly the same way. The illicit character of (46l)b-c accounts in tum
for the fact that (46)b-c lack the amount interpretation.
7. 7. 3. The long wh-movement of non-D-linked wh-phrases
Let us recall now that within the framework proposed here we have at our disposal
a typology of wh-structures which distinguishes among five types of wh-structures
(see (43)a-e). It has been established that bare quantifiers, as well as structures
relying on DR + NPR, cannot be interpreted as referential. However, they will be
shown not to be sensitive to weak islands. The case of clefts will appear to be
similar. All these cases go against Comorovski's (1989a,b) and Cinque's (1990)
generalization that non-referential/ non-D-linked wh-phrases cannot be extracted
out of weak islands.39
7. 7. 3. 1. Bare quantifiers
According to the analysis proposed in 7. 3. 2., bare quantifiers do not undergo DR,
but they function nevertheless as non-referential. Note also that the interpretation of
bare quantifiers is clearly non-D-linked. The speaker does presuppose that the
hearer may answer by mentioning a particular individual, but this individual is not
part of the background of the dialogue:
(48)
a. Whatj did you regret that Mary has read ei ?

Whomj did you regret that Mary has loved ei ?
b. Whatj didn't Mary read ej ?
Whomj didn't Mary examine ej ?
c. Whatj is it time that Mary read ei ?
Whomj is it time that Mary meets ei ?
The observed unsensitivity to weak islands is predicted by Rizzi's analysis: the

variable bound by a bare quantifier is assigned a referential th-role, and as such it
can be A'-bound.
39
Cinque's generalization is an extension of Comorovski (1989a, b), who argues that only Dlinked wh-phrases get out of wh-islands. Most of my examples are constructed with the negation
or factives; wh-islands seem to impose particular constraints, which I will leave aside for further
research.
7. 7. 3. 2. DR + NPR
7. 7. 3. 2. 1. The DR of what
In Section 7. 4. above it was shown that Romanian presents a minimal pair between
what N' and which N' expressions: the former cannot be clitic doubled, nor marked
with a prepositional Accusative, whereas the latter are obligatorily clitic doubled
and marked with a prepositional Accusative. This overt distinction correlates with
the well-known interpretive difference in terms of D-linking. But this difference in
D-linking does not appear to make a difference for the extraction out of weak
islands. Both (49) and (50) are well-formed:
(49) a. Ce carte regrep c a citit Maria ?
'What book do you regret that Mary has read?'
b. Ce carte n-a cititMaria?
'What book hasn't Mary read?'
(50) a. Care carte regrep c a citit-o Maria?
which book do you regret that has read-it Mary
b. Care carte n-a citit-o Maria?
which book hasn't read-it Mary
The data in (49) show that weak islands are freely violated by the non-D-linked
what ', and this is not expected under the D-linking constraint on extraction out
of weak islands.
Under the present proposal we must explain why the LF representations of (49),
relying on DR + NPR, are legitimate:
(491) a. Whati [[ ei book]i do you regret that Mary has read ej] ?
b. Whati [[ ei book]i hasn't Mary read ei] ?
The empty category in the direct object position is assigned a referential th-role, and
therefore, given Rizzi's theory, A'-binding can obtain; hence weak islands can be
freely violated (see (44)b).
7. 7. 3. 2. 2. The D-linked and non-D-linked interpretations of how many
Consider next the following examples:
(51) a. Cite femeij regrep c ai iubit ei ?
how many womenj do you regret to have loved ei
b. Pe cite femeij regrep c lej-ai iubit ei?
This data shows that cite/cip 'how many' expressions may optionally be clitic
doubled (correlatively a prepositional Accusative occurs). The overt difference
between these two possibilities corresponds to a difference in interpretation: (51)b,
but not (51)a, is D-linked. But here again we observe that the lack of D-linking that
characterizes (51)a does not block extraction out of weak islands. This data can be
understood if we assume the following LF representations:
(511) a. [cphow manyj [CPfej womenjj [do youregretto have loved ej]]
b. [cphow many womeni [do youregretto themi-have loved ei]]
(51 l)b, which presents an empty category bound by a closed NP, corresponds to a
"predicational" reading: the questionee is assumed to have at his disposal a Dlinked set of women (i.e., a set of women which constitutes common knowledge
between speaker and hearer), say {Mary, Joan, Pat}; for each woman the
questionee checks whether a certain predicate (that of having caused regret ...)
holds, and then he counts the positive answers.40 Note that this procedure of
answering a wh-question is equivalent to answering a set of yes/no questions : Do
you regret to have loved Mary/Joan/Pat?. This procedure depends on D-linking, or
more precisely on the referential interpretation of the wh-phrase. It is only if the
wh-phrase denotes an individual that truth conditions can be assigned by checking
whether a given predicate holds of a given individual (in more formal terms one
checks whether a property (a set of individuals) belongs to the set of properties (the
set of sets of individuals) denoted by the individual). Since yes/no questions
depend on the possibility of assigning truth-conditions in this way, a wh-question
may be equivalent to a yes/no question only if the wh-phrase denotes an individual.
Compare (51)a, which asks a question concerning the number of individuals that
are women and that the questionee regrets to have loved. This interpretation does
not involve D-linking: there is no discourse-salient set of women, but only a set
defined as the intersection of two predicates, [[x: you regret to have loved x] and
[x: woman]]. The questionee is asked to tell what the cardinality of that set is. The
corresponding reading relies on existential quantification: "there is a set of
individuals such that....; who/ how many individuals are there in the set?". The
difference between (51)a and (51)b could thus be characterized as relying on
existential quantification and on predication, respectively.
The difference between (51)a and (51)b can also be characterized in terms of
different presuppositions: (51)a presupposes you regret to have loved (the
question bears on the identification of the variable) whereas (51)b presupposes
there is (Mary, Joan, Pat} and the question bears on the truth of you regret to have
loved Mary, Joan, Pat.
Languages like French and English do not overtly distinguish between (51)a and
(51)b, and it is somewhat difficult to characterize in intuitive terms the difference
between the two readings. English speakers may think of the difference between
(52)a and b:
(52) a. How many women do you regret to have loved?
b. Which of these women do you regret to have loved? How many are they?
40
The relation of "predication" described here is probably what Szabolcsi (1992) refers to as the
"look-up" procedure (one looks at every individual in a given universe and checks whether it
exhibits the property expressed by a given predicate). Szabolcsi observes that "look-up is viable
because we assume that each individual is a 'peg', from which all its properties are hanging, cf.
Landman (1986)". A reasonable interpretation of this observation is that the look-up procedure is
viable only in D-linking contexts: the universe is then limited to individuals with "hanging
properties".
In sum, the Romanian examples in (51)a-b differ with respect to the presence of
closed or open wh-phrases (which underlies the (non)D-linking reading), but both
of them are grammatical in weak-island configurations. This indicates that weak
islands do not trigger a D-linking interpretation, which is expected under the
present proposal because nothing blocks a derivation that relies on both DR and
NPR. Recall that weak islands do block a representation relying on DR alone
because in this case the variable bound by the raised determiner does not occupy an
-position, and therefore cannot be assigned a referential th-role. This accounts for
the fact that the amount reading of how many is not available in weak island
contexts (see Section 7.7.2.1. above).
7.7. 3. 3. Clefts
Let us finally consider cleft sentences, which are currently analyzed as relying on
the presence of a null operator that licenses a variable in an A-position:
(53) It is John [Oi [Imetx i last year]].
Cleft sentences freely violate weak islands:
(54) a. It is John that I regret to have loved.
b. It is John that I did not love.
c. It is John that I wondered where I met
According to Cinque's (1989, 1990) generalization, weak-island violations correlate
with the referentiality of the wh-phrase; since null operators can by no means be
assumed to be referential, Cinque considers that the relevant referential element is
the antecedent of the null operator itself. I find this suggestion stipulative. Empirical
evidence against the idea that clefts rely on D-linking will be presented in the
following section.
7. 7. 4. The long wh-movement ofD-linked adjuncts
In sum, it has been shown above that certain non-D-linked wh-phrases may be
extracted out of weak islands. The relevant cases are bare quantifiers, clefts, and
wh-structures that rely on DR + NPR. This data shows that (55), which is Cinque's
(1990) extension of Comorovski's (1989) generalization, is too strong:
(55) Only referential /D-linked wh-phrases can be extracted from weak islands.
The only type of non-referential reading that is not available in weak island
contexts, is the amount reading.41 Rizzi's (1990) account of weak islands,
combined with the DR hypothesis proposed here, captures this data correctly; no
proviso concerning the referentiality of the wh-phrase itself need be added.
41
The same generalization can be found in Szabolcsi and Zwarts (1990), Szabolcsi (1992) and
Frampton (1990).
What is not expected under Rizzi's theory, however, is that D-linking allows
even Adjuncts to get out of weak islands:
(56)
a. ?For which of these reasonsj do you wonder if they can re you ei?
(example by Szabolcsi, p.c.)
b. ?On which of these daysj doesn't Mary remember whether she was
wearing a white dress ei?
c. Tin which bookshop jdid you forget when you last bought a book ei?
This data can be captured by saying that D-linking licenses referential indices on
wh-phrases (recall that according to Rizzi, referential indices are needed for A'binding, and referential indices can only be licensed by referential th-roles). A better
understanding of these examples is needed, but for our present purposes the
empirical generalization is sufficient:
(57) D-linked Adjuncts can get out of weak islands.
It is now possible to give further evidence in favour of the point I made above, that
bare quantifiers and clefts do not rely on D-linking. If they did, we would expect
(a) bare adjunct wh-phrases and (b) clefted adjuncts to be allowed to escape weak
islands:
(58)
(59)
* Whenj do you regret that Mary came ei?

(compare (32))
* Whyj do you regret that Mary came ej?
*It's for this reasonj that you wonder if they can re you ei. (compare (56))
*It's this wayj that you wonder if they can fire you ej.
*It's on the dayj that preceded her wedding that Mary doesn't remember
whether she was weanng a white dress ej.
*It's in this bookshopj that I forget when I last bought a book ei.
*It's 100 metersj that John wonders whether this yard measures &{.
*It's 200 $j that Bill wondered whether it was worth paying for the book ei.
Since these examples are ungrammatical, we are forced to conclude that neither bare
quantifiers nor clefts rely on D-linking. In the absence of D-linking, the
extractability out of weak islands depends on the presence of a referential th-role;
since adjuncts do not present such a th-role, they cannot be extracted in (58)-(59).
Conclusions
(1) The referential th-role condition (individual variables) captures correctly the
partition of the data that can be observed in non-D-linking contexts (adjuncts,
complements without a referential th-role, and the amount interpretation versus
arguments).
(2) In D-linking contexts Rizzi's condition may be violated: even adjuncts escape
from weak islands.
(3) For wh-phrases bearing a referential th-role, D-linking does not make a
difference as to extractability out of weak islands.
The generalization stated under (2) strongly suggests that wh-structures

involving D-linking rely on a relation quite different from the standard A'-binding,
which is defined in terms of referential th-roles. In Section 7. 7.3.2.2. I tried to
argue that D-linking involves predication, whereas A'-binding relies on existential
quantification. We Aus end up with the conclusion that there are two distinct types
of long distance relations (both of them violate strong islands, see Chapter 6), A'binding (existential quantification) and predication (D-linking).
7. 8. Weak islands and scope

7. 8. 1. Asymmetries between topicalization and wh-movement
I now turn to a class of examples discussed by Cinque (1990), which cannot be
accounted for by what has been said so far. In Italian (and also in Romanian)
examples such as (60), with a topicalized bare quantifier, are grammatical.
Examples (61) show that bare quantifiers cannot be topicalized out of weak islands:
(60) a. Qualcuno troverai.
someone you'll find
b. Qualcosa far per noi.
something [he] will do for us
(61) a. * Qualcuno mi chiedo come troverai.
someone I wonder how you'll find
b. *Qualcosa, mi chiedo chi far per noi.
something I wonder who will do for us
c. * Qualcuno, non credo che trover.
Someone I don't think that he will find
d. * Qualcuno, mi pento di aver aiutato.
someone I regret I helped
(Cinque (1990))
(Cinque (1990))
Examples such as (61) constitute a strong argument in favour of the idea that nonreferential elements cannot get out of weak islands. It is however clear that this
generalization is not correct for bare wh-quantifiers, which extract out of weak
islands quite freely:
(62)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Whom do you wonder how you'll find?

What do you wonder who will do for us?
Whom don't you think that he will find?
Whom do you regret to have helped?
I am not going to provide a complete account of the asymmetry between bare

quantifiers such as qualcuno or qualcosa and bare wh-quantifiers. I will simply
show that the asymmetry concerning weak islands correlates with an asymmetry
concerning scope properties. Therefore, the peculiar behaviour of qualcuno in (61)
need not be captured by directly specifying its non-extractability out of weak
islands.
7. 8. 2. Bare quantifiers and scope

Examples (63)b and (64)b show that topicalized bare quantifiers are necessarily
interpreted as narrow-scoped. Examples (63)a and (64)a show that bare whquantifiers are ambiguous between the narrow scope and the wide scope readings:
(63) a. Pe cine apreciaz top studenfii ti?
(ambiguous)
whom do all your students appreciate?
b. Pe cineva (sint sigur c) apreciaz top studenpi 2/.(narrow scope of cineva)
pe somebody (I am sure that) appreciate all your students
(64) a. Ce eti sigur c an citit to(i?
(ambiguous)
what are you sure that have all (of them)?
b. Ceva sint sigur c au citit
top".
(narrow scope of ceva)
something [I] am sure that [they] have all read
Although it is largely mysterious, this data constitutes a quite solid empirical
generalization in both Romanian and Italian.
7. 8. 3. Weak islands block narrow scope
The idea that weak islands block the narrow scope interpretation can be found in
Longobardi (1987); Giorgi and Longobardi (1990); Kiss (1991); de Swart (1992)
and Szabolcsi (1992). I illustrate it here with Longobardi's examples quoted by
Cinque (1990). The "family of questions" reading is possible in (65)a, as indicated
by the possibility of answers such as: "Dr. X managed to visit 5 in one hour, Dr. Y
7, etc. Example (65)b, on the other hand, can be answered by just one number
("Only 3"):
(65) a. How many patients do you believe that each/every doctor managed to visit
in one hour?
b. How many patients do you regret that each/every doctor managed to visit
in one hour?
Assuming that the family of questions interpretation depends on the narrow scope
of how many, the impossibility of this reading in (65)b can be analyzed as being
due to the weak-island context.
Returning to (61), its ungrammaticality can now be understood as being due to
two contradictory requirements: the Topicalization of bare quantifiers forces the
narrow scope reading, but the narrow scope reading is blocked by weak islands.
Compare bare wh-quantifiers: since they allow the wide scope reading, they can be
extracted out of weak islands.
To conclude, the weak island sensitivity shown by the topicalization of bare
quantifiers is not due to their being non-referential, but is a consequence of the
contradictory scope properties of weak islands and topicalizations.
Appendix 1: Nonreferen tiality without DR

DR obeys the general condition on extraction out of NP. See Pollock (1989):
(66) Extraction out of NP is possible only if the NP is canonically governed by
the verb.
This condition is obeyed only if there is no intervening canonical governor, as in
(67). Prepositions, be they dummy or lexical (see (68) and (69) respectively) count
as canonical governors, and therefore they block extraction out of NP:
(67) J'ai beaucoupi lu [ej de livres].
I have muchi read ei of books
(68) *fai beaucoupi parte [pp [np ei d'enfants].
I have muchi talked to ei of children
(69) *J'ai beaucoupi parte [ppdevani [NP ej d'enfants].
I have muchi talked in front of ei of children
Assuming that LF rules are subject to the same constraints as S-structure rules, one
must conclude that the LF counterparts of (68) and (69) are illegitimate. How can
we then account for the nonreferential reading, which is possible for (70) and (71):
(70) J'ai parte [pp [NP beaucoup d'enfants].
I have talked to many children
(71) Tai parte [ppdevani [NP beaucoup d'enfants]
I have talked in front of many children
Given the account in 7.3. nonreferentiality is tied to DR. However, if we apply DR
to (70) and (71) we obtain LF counterparts of (68) and (69), which as such should
be ruled out.
There is an alternative LF derivation for (70)-(71) which seems to provide us
with the desired result: we first apply NPR (which pied-pipes the preposition), and
then DR out of the NPR-ed constituent:
(71')
[beaucoup]j [ppi devant [NP ej d'enfants]] [sJ'ai [VPparlf [pp ei]
This type of derivation has already been examined (see the discussion of (5"') and
discarded. The theoretical reason is that a raised NP occupies a position which is
not canonically governed by the verb. The empirical reason is that by allowing (71')
we would be let to allow a similar derivation for prepositional accusatives, which
would have the undesirable result of predicting that the existential reading would be
possible in that case too. 42
42
This outcome might be avoided by saying that a derivation comparable to that in (71') is illicit
for prepositional Accusatives because in this case the preposition is "dummy", and as such it does
not L-mark the NP; therefore, in a representation that would differ from that in (7) by the
presence of dummy pe (instead of the lexical devant 'in front o f ) the raising of the quantifier
would still be blocked. Note, however, that this cannot be the correct solution. To account for the
existential reading of (70) we would have to assume (7Cf):
We are now faced with the conclusion that nonreferentiality cannot be tied to the
LF rule of DR, and this seems devastating for the present proposal. Fortunately,
this conclusion, which is probably correct, does not, in fact, destroy our account. It
seems true that nonreferentiality must be tied to DR only for direct objects; DR
does not seem to be relevant for indirect objects and prepositional phrases. This is
not a very serious problem because it is known that indirect objects (and
prepositional phrases) behave differently from direct objects with respect to
quantificational structures (e.g., variables bound by open NPs can be clitic doubled;
for further discussion see Chapter 6).
Appendix 2: Strong determiners
The main purpose of this chapter was to analyze empirical data in which the
semantic interpretation of NPs appears to be partially determined by the syntactic
configuration. For reasons to be specified below, the interpretation of strong NPs is
less sensitive to syntactic configurations.
Following Heim (1982, p. 133), let us assume that LF configurations presenting
every have the tripartite structure shown in (72)b:43
(72)
a. I examined every student.

b. S
e; student
I examined ej
As a result of DR, an open NP is generated, which translates as a restrictive term.

The third part of the structure translates as the "nuclear scope" (see (7)a-b):
(72) c. every ( : student) [ I examined x]
The corresponding reading is the presuppositional one.
Note further that, due to the semantic properties of strong determiners, namely
the fact that they are not symmetric, the representation resulting from DR + NPR
(70')
[beaucouplj [ppi [js[p ej d'enfants]] tsJ'ai [vpparte [pp ei]
But here the preposition is dummy (see Vergnaud (1985)), and as such should block DR, on a par
with the Romanian pe.
"^Recall that this representation is derived by NPR + DR within Heim's framework, and by DR
+ NPR within the framework proposed here. This difference is not relevant for the present
discussion.
cannot be rewritten as unrestricted quantification.44 For the same reason, DR + reincorporation cannot affect strong determiners.
Thus, the only possible representation for (72) appears to be the format of
restricted quantification shown in (72)b-c, which gives rise to the presuppositional
reading. The fact that strong NPs are necessarily interpreted as presuppositional is
clearly indicated by the well-known test of there contexts.45 More precisely, therecontexts indicate that strong NPs can be assigned neither the existential nor the
amount interpretations. The two possibilities left open, then, are the
presuppositional and the referential readings. The Weak Cross Over test indicates
that certain strong NPs, e.g., most ', or every N\ cannot be assigned the
referential reading,46 but only the presuppositional one:
(73) a. *Hisj mother loves every childj.
b. * Theirj mothers love most childrenj.
"Strong" NPs such as every and most thus clearly indicate that referentiality and
presuppositionality should be kept distinct. This does not mean that all strong NPs
are necessarily non-referential. Certain strong NPs can indeed be clitic-doubled,
which forces the referential reading (Weak Cross Over violations disappear).
To summarize, the rule of DR is sensitive to the semantic properties of
determiners. DR alone may affect weak determiners, but not strong determiners
(because they are not symmetric, strong determiners are not compatible with the
representation resulting from DR alone). As any rule of grammar, DR is optional,
and as such it does not apply in those cases in which its application would lead to
illicit representations. Also, identical LF representations (see the one obtained via
DR + NPR) may give rise to distinct semantic representations (restricted or
unrestricted quantification), depending on the presence of strong or weak
determiners. It thus appears that the interpretation of strong NPs is largely
determined by the semantic properties of their determiners. This is not the case of
weak NPs, which allow four distinct representations, depending on the rules that
map S-structures onto LFs.
Êvery seems to allow the format of unrestricted quantification: Vx [x is a student = > John met
x]. Note however that the logical connective "implies" must be inserted, and one may assume that
the rules that map syntax to LF cannot insert logical connectives (the conjunctive connective is an
exception: it can be viewed as a natural translation of juxtaposition or adjunction configurations,
and as such it may be introduced at LF). Clearer cases in point do exist: most, for instance, can
only be represented in terms of restricted quantification.
45
The relevant type of example is well-known:
(i)
*There came most students.
(ii) There came two students.
46
T h e idea that strong and weak NPs do not differ from each other with respect to
"referential/quantificational" status contradicts the taxonomy proposed in Chapter 6, where strong
NPs are taken to function specifically/referentially. Since my main purpose was (and still is) an
analysis of weak quantifiers, this mistaken view did not affect the main results.
Bibliography
Abney, S. 1987, The English Noun Phrase In Its Sentential Aspect, PH.D., MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Afarli, T. A. 1989, "Passive in Norwegian and in English", Linguistic Inquiry
20:1,101-108.
Akmajian, S. and T. Wasow 1975, "The Constituent Structure of VP and Aux and
the Position of the Verb BE", Linguistic Analysis 1, 205-245.
Akmajian, S., S. Steele and T. Wasow 1979, "The Category AUX in Universal
Grammar", Linguistic Inquiry 10.1,1-64.
Aoun, Y. 1981, The Formal Nature of Anaphoric Relations, M.I.T. Thesis.
Aoun, J. 1985, A Grammar of Anaphora, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Aoun, Y. and D. Sportiche 1983, "On the Formal Theory of Government", The
Linguistic Review 2,3,211-236.
Aoun, Y. and Li, T.A. 1989, "Scope and Constituency", Linguistic Inquiry 20,2,
141-173.
Avram, L. 1988, '"Verb auxiliar' in limba romn: categorie lexical sau morfem
gramatical?", Studii cercetri lingvistice XXXIX, 5,439-445.
Ayoub, G. 1982, Structure de la phrase verbale en arabe standard, Third Cycle
Thesis, Paris VHI-Vincennes
Azoulay, A. 1985, Les tours comportant l'expression DE+ adjectif, Librairie Droz,
Geneve-Paris.
Baker, M. 1988, Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Baker, M., Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. 1989, "Passive Arguments Raised",
Linguistic Inquiry 20, 2,219-253.
Bartsch, R. 1973, "The Semantics and Syntax of Number and Numbers", in J.P.
Kimball, ed., Syntax and semantics 2. New York and London: Seminar Press.
Barwise, J. and R. Cooper 1981, "Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language",
Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159-219.
Belletti, A. 1982, "'Morphological' Passive and Pro-drop: the Impersonal
Construction in Italian", Journal of Linguistic Research 2.1.
Belletti, A. 1988, "The Case of Unaccusatives", Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-34.
Belletti, A. 1990, Generalized Verb Movement, Rosenberg e Sellier, Torino.
Bennis H. and T. Hoekstra 1988, 'The Tense Connection', GLOW Newsletter,
Foris, Dordrecht.
den Besten, . 1977, "On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical
Deletive Rules", unpublished paper, University of Amsterdam [publ. version:
den Besten (1983)].
den Besten, . 1983, "Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules", in
Abraham, W. (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, Benjamins,
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
Blinkenberg, A. 1960, Le probleme de la transitivit6 en frangais moderne,
Munsksgaard.
Bonet i Alsina, . E. 1991, Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in
Romance, MIT dissertation.
Borer, H. 1981, Parametric Variation in Clitic Constructions, M.I.T. dissertation.
Borer, H. 1984, Parametric Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris (publication of Borer (1981)).
Bibliography
279
Borer, . 1986, "I-Subjects", Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 375-416.

Borer, H. 1987, "Anaphoric AGR", in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir, eds. The Null
Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Reidel (1989).
Borer, H. 1986 (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19, Academic Press, New York.
Bouchard, D. 1984, On the Content of Empty Categories, Foris Publications.
Bredemeier, J. 1976, Strukturbeschrankungen im Rumnischen, Tubingen.
Bresnan, J. 1970, "On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement
types", Foundations of Language, 6, 297-321.
Bresnan, J. 1972, Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Burzio, L. 1981, Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Ph. D dissertation, .
Burzio,L. 1986, Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach, Reidel,
Dordrecht
Cardinaletti, A. 1990, Impersonal Constructions and Sentential Arguments in
German. Unipress, Padua.
Cardinaletti, A. and G. Giusti 1990, "Partitive ne and the QP-hypothesis",
manuscript, University of Venice.
Cardinaletti, ., G. Cinque and G. Giusti 1988, Constituent Structure, Dordrecht,
Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1955, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, mimeographed,
Harvard; Plenum, 1975.
Chomsky, N. 1957, Syntactic Structures, Mouton.
Chomsky, N. 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, .
Chomsky, N. 1973, "Conditions on Transformations", in Anderson & Kiparsky
eds. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New-York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chomsky, N. 1976, "Conditions on Rules of Grammar", Linguistic Analysis 2,4,
303-351.
Chomsky, N. 1977, "On Wh-Movement", in P.Culicover, T.Wasow, and
A.Akmajian (eds), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, 71- 132.
Chomsky 1980, "On Binding", Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1-46.
Chomsky, N. 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications,
Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. 1982,Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Binding,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
Chomsky 1986a, Knowledge of Language. Its Nature, Origine and Use, Praeger,
New York.
Chomsky, N. 1986b, Barriers, Linguistic Inquiry monograph, n 13, MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1989, "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation",
in I. Laka & A. Mahajan, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10.
Chung, S. 1982, "Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar", Linguistic
Inquiry 13, 39-77.
Cinque, G. 1977, "The Movement Nature of Left Dislocation", Linguistic Inquiry
8, 2, 397-412.
Cinque, G. 1982, "Island Effects, Subjacency, ECP/Connectedness and
Reconstruction", manuscript, Universita di Venezia.
Cinque, G. 1984 a, "Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and the 'Move a" Parameter",
manuscript, Universita di Venezia.
Cinque, G. 1984 b, "A'-bound pro vs variable", manuscript, Universita di
Venezia.
Cinque, G. 1986, "Bare Quantifiers, Quantified NPs and the Notion of Operator at
S-structure", Rivista di grammatica generativa, vol. 11.
Cinque 1988, "On Si Constructions and the Theory of ARB", Linguistic Inquiry,
19, pp 521-581.
Cinque, G. 1989, "'Long' Wh-movement and Referentiality", paper presented at the
Second Princeton Workshop on Comparative Grammar, Princeton University,
april 1989.
Cinque, G. 1990, Types of A'-Dependencies, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 17.
Comorovski, I. 1986, "Multiple Wh Movement in Romanian", Linguistic Inquiry,
171-177.
Comorovski, I. 1989a, Discourse and the Syntax of Multiple Constituent
Questions, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Unversity.
Comorovski, I. 1989b, "Discourse-Linking and the Wh-Island Constraint", in
Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting, NELS.
Contreras, H. 1987, "Small clauses in Spanish and English", Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 5, 225-244.
Couquaux, D. 1979, "Sur la syntaxe des phrases pridicatives en franâis",
Linguisticae Investigation's III.2, 245-284.
Couquaux, D. 1981, "French Predication and Linguistic Theory", in R. May and J.
Kster, eds., Levels of Syntactic Representation, 33-64, Foris, Dordrecht.
Culicover, P. 1976, Syntax, Academic Press, New York.
Dasgupta, P. 1988, "Bangla Quantifier Extraction, Unaccusative in Situ, and the
ECP", Linguistic Inquiry 19, 4.
Davidson, D. 1966, 'The Logical Form of Action Sentences', in D. Davidson 1980.
Davidson, D. 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Demonte, V. 1987, "C-command, Prepositions and Predication",
Linguistic
Inquiry, 18,1, 147-157.
Diesing, M. 1990, The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition, Ph.D. dissertation,
Amherst.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1985, "Redoublement clitique, relatives et interrogatives en
roumain et espagnol", Linguisticae Investigationes IX:2, 269-307.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1986, "A propos du contraste entre le passif morphologique et
se moyen dans les tours impersonnels", Linguisticae Investigationes X:2, 289330.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1987, Syntaxe du roumain. These de Doctorat d'Etat,
Universite de Paris 7.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1988, "What Does QR Raise", Logical Form (Program and
Abstracts), Tilburg University.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1990a, "Clitic Doubling, WH Movement and Quantification in
Romanian", Linguistic Inquiry 21, 3.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1990b, "Auxiliaries and Sentence Structure in Rumanian", in
Mascaro and Nespor, eds. Grammar in Progress. GLOW Essays for H. van
Riemsdijk, Foris Publications.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1991, "Mouvement wh et relations de quantification", in J.
Gueron et J.-Y. Pollock, eds. Grammaire generative et syntaxe comparee, Ed. du
CNRS, 15, quai A. France, Paris.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1992, "LF Representations, Weak Islands and the ECP",
GLOW abstract.
Dubuisson, C. and J. Goldsmith 1976, "A propos de l'inversion du clitique sujet en
frangais", in A. Ford, J. Reighard and R. Singh eds., Actes du Sixieme Congres
Bibliography
281
de l'Association Linguistique du Nord-Est, Recherches Linguistiques Montreal

vol. 6, 103-112.
Emonds, J. 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure
Preserving, and Local Transformations, Academic Press, New York.
Emonds, J. 1978, 'The Verbal Complex V'-V in French', Linguistic Inquiry 9:2,
151-175.
, . 1987, 'Anchoring Conditions for Tense', Linguistic Inquiry 18:4, 633657.
, . 1991, 'The Semantics of Specificity', Linguistic Inquiry 22:1, 1-25.
Engdahl, E. 1983, "Parasitic Gaps", Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, pp 5-34.
Everaert, M. 1986, "Long reflexivization and obviation in the Romance languages",
in P. Coopmans, I. Bordelois, and B.D. Smith (eds), Formal parameters of
generative grammar, University of Utrecht
Fabb, . 1984,Syntactic Affixation, PH.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Farkas, D. 1978, "Direct and Indirect Object Reduplication in Romanian", C.L.S.
14.
Farkas, D. 1981, Intensionality and Romance Subjunctive Relatives, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago.
Farkas, D. 1984, "Subjunctive Complements in Rumanian", in P. Baldi (ed.),
Papers from the XII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, John
Benjamins.
Farkas, D. 1988, "On the Morpho-Syntax of Subjunctive Clauses in Rumanian",
International Journal of Rumanian Studies 6, 2.
Fassi-Fehri, A. forthcoming, Issues in the Structure of Arabic Caluses and Words,
Kluwer.
Fiengo, R., J. Huang, H. Lasnik and T. Reinhart 1989, "The Syntax of Wh-inSitu", Proceedings of WCFLL 7.
Fodor, J. and Sag, I. 1982, "Referential and Quantificational Indefinites",
Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355-398.
Frampton, J. 1990, "The Fine Structure of WH Movement and the Proper
Formulation of the ECP", ms., Northeastern University.
Fukui, N. and Speas, M. 1986, "Specifiers and Projection", MITWPL 8.
Galves, C. 1989, "L'objet nul et la structure de la proposition en portugais du
Bresil", Revue des Langues romanes XCIII, 2, 305-336.
Givon, T. 1982, "Transitivity, topicality and the Ute impersonal passive", in P. J.
Hopper and S.A. Thompson, eds.
Gleitman, L. 1990, "The Structural Sources of Verb Meanings", Language
Acquisition 1.1., 3-57.
Godard, D. 1989, "Empty Categories as Subjects of Tensed Ss in English or
French?", Linguistic Inquiry 20, 3, 497-506.
Goldin, M. 1968, Spanish Case and Function, Washington, Georgetown
Unvisersity Press.
Gramatica Limbii romne, Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucurejti 1966.
Grimshaw, J. 1981, "Form, Function, and the Language Acquisition Device. In
C.L. Baker and J. McCarthy, eds. The Logical Problem of Language
Acquisition. Cambridge, MA, MIT press.
Grimshaw, J. 1990, Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA, MIT press.
Grimshaw, J. 1991, "Extended Projection", unpublished manuscript, Brandeis
University.
Grosu, A. and Horvath, J. 1987, "On Non-finiteness in Extraction Constructions",

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5,2.
Gruber, J. 1976, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semanf/csGruber, North
Holland, Amsterdam.
Guron, J. and Hoekstra, T. 1988, "T-chains and the constituent structure of
auxiliaries", paper presented at GLOW Conference, Venice 1987.
Guju-Romalo, V. 1962, "Forme verbale compuse", Studii $i cercetri lingvistice
XIII, 1962, 2, 191-199.
Haider, H. 1988, "Matching Projections", in A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque and G.
Giusti, eds. Constituent Structure. Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference,
Annali di ca' Foscari XXVII, 4,101-123.
Haik, I. 1984, "Indirect Binding", Linguistic Inquiry 15, pp 185- 223.
Hale, K. 1981, "On the position of Warlbiri in a typology of the Base", Indiana
University Linguistic Circle.
Hale, K. and Keyser, J. K. 1991, On the Syntax of Argument Structure, Center for
Cognitive Science, MIT.
Halle, M. 1989 "An Approach to Morphology", NELS 20, Amherst, MA, pp 150184.
Harlow, S. 1983, "Celtic Relatives", York Papers in Linguistics, 10, 77-121.
Hausser, R. 1974 Quantification in an extended Montague grammar, Ph.d.
dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Heim, I. 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PH.D.,
Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Heim, I. 1987, "Where Does the Definiteness Restriction Apply?" Evidence from
the Definiteness of Variables", in E.J. Reuland and A.G.B, ter Meulen eds., The
Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, 21-43.
Higginbotham, J. 1980 "Pronouns and Bound Variables", Linguistic Inquiry 11,
679-708.
Higginbotham, J. 1985, 'On Semantics', Linguistic Inquiry 16:4, 547-593.
Higginbotham, J. 1987, "Indefiniteness and Predication", in Reuland, E. and Alice
ter Meulen, eds. The Representation of (In)definiteness, Press.
Hoekstra, T. 1984, Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding
Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.
Hoekstra, T. and R. Mulden 1990, "Unergatives as Copular Versb; Locational and
Existential Predication", The Linguistic Review!, 1.
Hoji, H. 1985, Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in
Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Holmberg, A. 1990 "Scandinavian Weak Pronouns", paper given at the
Eurotypology Group 8 meeting "Clitics and their hosts", Universite de Geneve.
de Hoop, H. 1992, Noun Phrase Interpretation and Case Assignment, Groningen.
Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thomson 1980, "Transitivity in grammar and discourse",
Language 56, 2, 251-299.
Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thomson 1982, Studies in Transitivity, Syntax and
Semantics 15, New York, Academic Press.
Hornstein, . 1984, Logic as Grammar, MIT Press.
Horvath, J. and Grosu, A. 1987, "On the Notion 'Head'; evidence from
interrogatives and free relatives", Theoretical Linguistics, 14, 35-64.
Huang, J. 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PH.D.,
MIT.
Bibliography
283
Huang, J. 1984, "On the distribution and reference of empty categories", Linguistic
Inquiry, 15.
Huang, J. 1989, "PRO-drop in Chinese", in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir eds., The Null
Subject Parameter.
Huot, H. 1977, Recherches sur la subordination en frangais, These de Doctorat
d'Etat, Universite Paris 7.
Huot, H. 1981, Constructions infinitives du frangais: le subordonnant 'de', Droz,
Geneva.
Hyams, N. 1986, "The Interpretation and Acquisition of Italian Impersonal s f , in
H. Borer, (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 19, 219-240.
Hurtado, A. 1984, "On the Properties of LF", Cornell Working
Papers in
Linguistics, 5.
Jackendoff, R. 1972, Semantic Representation in Generative Grammar, MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, R.S. 1977, X' Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jaeggli, O. 1980 "Remarks on To Contraction", Linguistic Inquiry 11.1, 239-245.
Jaeggli, O. 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Jaeggli, O. 1986a, "Passive", Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587-622.
Jaeggli, O. 1986b, "Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics", in H. Borer (ed.),
Syntax and Semantics 19, Academic Press, New York.
Jaeggli, O. and K. Safir 1989, eds. The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer.
Jakubowicz, C. 1985a, "Do Binding Principles Apply to Infi?", Proceedings of the
Northeast Linguistic Society 15, 183-206.
Jong, F.M.G. de, and H. J. Verkuyl 1985, "Generalized Quantifiers: The
Properness of Their Strength", in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds.,
Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, Dordrecht, Foris.
Jong, F.M.G. de 1987, "The Compositional Nature of (In)definiteness", in E. J.
Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen, eds.
Kaisse, E. 1985b, Connected Speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology,
Academic Press, New York.
Kaisse, E. 1985, "Locating Turkish Devoicing", Proceedings of the WCCFL 5,
119-128.
Kayne, R.S. 1969, The Transformational Cycle in French Syntax, Ph. D M.I.T.
Kayne, R.S. 1975, Syntaxe du francais. Le cycle transformationnel, Paris, Le
Seuil.
Kayne, R. S. 1975 French Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kayne, R. S. 1982, "Predicates and Arguments, Verbs and Nouns", GLOW
abstract, Paris.
Kayne, R. 1983, "Chains, Categories External to S, and French Complex
Inversion", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 109-37.
Kayne, R. 1984, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris Publications,
Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. 1987 "Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement", ms., MIT.
Kayne, R. 1989 "Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing", in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir,
eds. The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Reidel.
Kayne, R. 1991, "Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO", Linguistic Inquiry
22,4, 647-687.
Kayne, R. and J.-Y. Pollock 1978, "Stylistic Inversion, Successive Cyclicity, and
Move NP in French", Linguistic Inquiry 9, 595-621.
Keenan, E.1987, "A Semantic Definition of 'Indefinite NP'", in E. Reuland and A.

ter Meulen, eds., 286-319.
Keenan, E. and J. Stavi 1986, "A semantic characterization of natural language
determiners", Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253-326.
Kempchinsky, P. 1985, "The Subjunctive Disjoint Reference Effect", Proceedings
of the 15th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages.
Kiss, . K. 1991, "Logical Structure in Linguistic Structure: The Case of
Hungarian", in J. Huang and R. May, eds. Logical Structure and Linguistic
Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Kitagawa, Y. 1986,Subjects in Japanese and English, PH.D., Univ. of Mass.,
Amherst.
Klavans, J. 1980, Some Problems in the Theory of Clitics, Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Klavans, J. 1985, "The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in cliticization",
Language 61,95-120.
Kok, A. de 1985, La place du pronom personnel regime conjiont en frangais. Une
Stde diachronique, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
Kok, A. de 1989, "On the Conjunct Object Pronoun Systems of Rumanian and
French: a comparative analysis", International Journal of Rumanian Studies, 7,
la.
Koopman, H. 1984 The Syntax ofVerbs, Foris, Dordrecht.
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. 1982, "Variables and the Bijection Principle",
The Linguistic Review, 2, pp 139-161.
Koster, J. 1978a Locality Principles in syntaxe, Foris, Dordrecht.
Koster, J. 1978b "Why subject sentences don't exist", in Keyser (ed.) Recent
Transformational Studies in European Languages, 53-64.
Koster, J. 1984 "On binding and control", Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 3, 417-459.
Koster, J. 1987 Domains and Dynasties, Foris Dordrecht.
Kripke, S. 1977, "Speaker's reference and semantic reference", in P. French, T.
Uehling, and H. Wettstein (eds., Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy
of Language, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press 1979, 6-27.
Kroch, A. 1990, "Amount quantification, referentiality, and wh-movement",
GLOW abstract.
Laka, I. 1989 "Constraints on Sentence Negation", in I. Laka & A. Mahajan, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10.
Kuroda, S.Y. 1986 'Whether We Agree or Not', Linguisticae Investigationes 12:1,
1-47.
Landman, F. 1986, Towards a Theory of Information, Foris, Dordrecht.
Lefebvre, C. and P. Muysken, 1985, "List Fixing versus interactive models of
parametric typology", GLOW abstract.
Lema, J. et M.L. Rivero 1989, "Inverted Conjugations and V-second Effects in
Romance", article presente au XIXe Linguistic Symposium on Romance
Languages, Columbus, Ohio, 1989.
Lema, J. et M.L. Rivero 1990, "Types of verbal movement in Old Spanish:
Modals, Futures, and Perfects", unpublished manuscript, University of Ottawa.
Lieber, R. 1980 On the Organisation of the Lexicon, MIT PhD Dissertation,
Indiana University Club.
Lieber, R. 1983, 'Argument Linking and Compounds in English', Linguistic
Inquiry, 14,2, 251-285.
Bibliography
285
Manzini, . R. 1983, "On Control and Control Theory", Linguistic Inquiry 14,3,
421-467.
Manzini, M.R. 1986, "On Italian Si", in H. Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19:
The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Academic Press, New York.
Marantz, A. 1984, On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, Press.
Marantz, A. 1988 "Clitics, Morphological Merger and the Mapping to
Morphological Structure", in M. Hammon and M. Noonan eds., Theoretical
Morphology, Academic Press Inc., pp 253-270.
May, R. 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, M.I.T. Thesis.
May, R. 1985, Logical Form. Its Structure and Derivation, Press.
Milner 1982, Ordres et raisons de langue, Le Seuil, Paris.
Milner, J.-C. 1986, Introduction un traitement du passif, coll. ERA 642,
Universiti Paris 7.
Milner 1989, Introduction une science du langage, Le Seuil, Paris.
Milsark, G. 1977, "Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential
Construction in English", Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-30.
Mohanan, . T. 1985 "Remarks on Control and Control Theory", Linguistic
Inquiry 16,4,637-649.
Motapanyane, V. 1988, "La position du sujet dans une langue l'ordre
SVO/VSO", Rivista di grammatica generativa 14, 75-103.
Napoli, D. J. 1973, The two si's of Italian, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Naro, A. 1976, "The Genesis of the Reflexive Impersonal in Portuguese: a Study in
Syntactic Change as a Surface Phenomenon, Language 52.4
Nilson, E. 1969, Les termes relatifs et les propositions relatives en roumain
modeme, Lund.
Obenauer, . 1984-1985, "On the Identification of Empty Categories", The
Linguistic Review 4,153-202
Obenauer, H.-G. 1992 a, Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre- Effets d'intervention et
mouvement des quntieurs, these d'Etat, Universite de Paris 8.
Obenauer, H.-G. 1992 b, "L'interprtation des structures wh et l'accord du participe
pass", in H.-G. Obenauer et Anne Zribi-Hertz eds., Structure de la phrase et
thorie du liage, Actes du colloque international du GDR 120 (CNRS), 9-11
mars 1990, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Ouhalla, J. 1988,The Syntax of Head Movement, Study of Berber, PH.D.,
University College, London.
Ozkaragoz, I. 1980, "Evidence from Turkish for the unaccusative hypothesis", BLS
6,411-422.
Pan-Dindelegan, G. 1974, Sintaxa transformafional a grupului verbal in limba
romn, Bucuresti, Ed. Acad. RSR.
Partee, B. 1972, "Opacity, coreference, and pronouns", in D. Davidson and G.
Harman eds. Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, 415-441.
Partee, . H. 1973, 'Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in
English', The Journal of Philosophy 70, 601-609.
Partee, . H. 1984,' Nominal and temporal anaphora", Linguistics and Philosophy
7:2, 243-286
Partee, . H. 1988, "Many Quantifiers", Proceedings ofESCOL.
Perlmutter, D. 1972 "Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization", in
The Chicago which Hunt, C.L.S.
Perlmutter, D. 1978, 'Impersonal Passive and the Unaccusative Hypothesis', BLS

4, Univ. of CA, 157-189.
Perlmutter 1989, "Multiattachment and the Unaccusative hypothesis: the perfect
auxiliary in Italian", Probus, 1,1, 63-119.
Perlmutter, D.M. and Postal 1978," The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law", in
Perlmutter and Rosen, C. eds. 1984
Perlmutter and Rosen, C. eds. 1984, Studies in Relational Grammar 2, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Pesetsky, D. 1982, Paths and Categories, PH.D., .
Pesetsky, D. 1987, "Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding", in E.J.
Reuland and A.G.B, ter Meulen (eds) The Representation of (In)definites, MIT
Press, 98-130.
Picallo, C. 1984, 'The Infi Node and the Null Subject Parameter', Linguistic Inquiry
15:1,75-102.
Picallo, C. 1985, Opaque Domains, doctoral dissertation, CUNY, N. York.
Pinker, S. 1984, Language Learnability and language development, Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press.
Pinker, S. 1987 "Resolving a learnability paradox in the acquisition of the verb
lexicon", Lexicon Project Working Papers 17, pp 1-100, MIT Center for
Cognitive Science.
Platzack, C. 1983 "Germanic Word Order and the Comp/Infl Parameter", Working
Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 2.
Platzack, C. 1987, "The Scandinavian languages and the Null Subject parameter",
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 377-401.
Pollock 1981, "On Case and Impersonal Constructions", in R. May and J. Kster
(eds), Levels of Syntactic Representation II, 219-252, Dordrecht, Hollande.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1983 "Accord, chaines impersonnelles et variables", Linguisticae
Investigationes, II: 1, 131-181.
Pollock 1986, "Sur la syntaxe de 'en' et le parametre du sujet nul", in D. Couquaux
and M.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989 "Verb Movement, UG and the Structue of IP", Linguistic
Inquty 20, 365-424.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989, "Opacity, Genitive Subjects, and Extraction from NP in
English and French", Probus 1.2., 151-162.
Ronat, M. et D. Couquaux eds. 1986, La grammate modulaire, Editions de Minuit.
Raposo, E. 1987, "Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: the Inflected Infinitive in
European Portuguese", Linguistic Inquiry, 18,1, 85-109.
Reibel, D.A. and S.A. Schane (eds) 1969, Modern Studies in English, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Reinhart, . 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, dissertation.
Reinhart, . 1984, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.
Reinhart, T. 1987, "Specifier and Operator Binding", in E.J. Reuland and A.G.B,
ter Meulen (eds) The Representation of (In)detinites, MIT Press, 130-168.
Reuland, E. and Alice ter Meulen (eds) 1987, The Representation
of
(In)definiteness, MIT Press.
Reuland, E.J. 1985 "Representation at the Level of Logical Form and the
Definiteness Effect", in J. Gueron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock, eds.,
Grammatical Representation, Foris, Dordrecht.
Riemsdijk, H. van 1989, "Movement and regeneration", in P. Beninca (ed.) Dialect
variation and the theoiy of grammar, Foris, 105-136.
Bibliography
287
Riemsdijk, . van and E.Williams, 1981, "NP-structure", The Linguistic Review

1, 171-217.
Rivero, M.-L. 1987, "Barriers and Rumanian", in J. DeCesaris and C. Kirschner,
eds., Proceedings of the XVIIth LSRL, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Rivero, M.-L. 1988a, to appear, "The Structure of IP and V-movement in the
languages of the Balkans", manuscript University of Ottawa; to appear in
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Rivero, M.-L. 1988b, "Exceptional Case Marking Effects in Rumanian Subjunctive
Complements", keynote paper at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance
Languages XVIII, Urbana.
Riviere, N. 1979, "Problemes de l'intdgration de l'impersonnel dans une theorie
linguistique", Le Frangais moderne 47, 289-311.
Rizzi, L. 1976a, "La MONTEE DU SUJET, le si impersonnel, et une regle de
restructuration dans la syntaxe italienne", Recherches linguistiques 4, Universit
Paris VIII.
Rizzi, L. 1976b, "Ristrutturazione", Rivista di grammatica generative, 1.
Rizzi, L. 1982 Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris.
Rizzi, L. 1986a, "Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro", Linguistic Inquiry,
17, pp 501-557.
Rizzi, L. 1986b, On Chain Formation', in H. Borer (ed.), pp.65-95.
Rizzi, L. 1986c, "On the status of subject clitics in Romance", in Jaeggli and SilvaCorvalan eds., Studies in Romance Linguistics, 391-419.
Rizzi and Roberts 1989, "Complex Inversion in French", Probus, 1, 1, pp 1-30.
Rizzi 1990, Relativized Minimality, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 16, Press
Roberts, I. 1985, "Agreement Parameters and the Development of English Modal
Auxiliaries", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 21-58.
Roberts, I. 1987 The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects, Foris,
Dordrecht.
Roberts, I. 1991 Verbs and Diachronic Syntax,
Rochette, A. 1988 Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Romance Sentential
Complementation, MIT dissertation.
Ross, J. R. 1970, "Auxiliaries as Main Verbs", in Todd (ed.) Philosophical
Linguistics, Evanston, Great Expectations, pp. 77-102.
Rouveret, A. 1987, Syntaxe des dependances lexicales. Identity et identification dans
la Theorie Syntaxique. These de Doctorat d'Etat, Universite de Paris VII.
Rouveret, A. 1989 "Cliticisation et temps en portugais europeen", Revue des
langues romanes, tome XCIII, n 2, 337-373.
Rouveret, A. 1990, 'X-Bar Theory, Minimality, and Barrierhood in Welsh', in R.
Hendrick ed., Celtic Syntax, Academic Press, pp. 27-79.
Ruwet, N. 1983, "Du bon usage des expressions idiomatiques dans les
argumentations en grammaire generative", Revue Qu6becoise de Linguistique,
13.1.
Ruwet, N. 1984, "Je veux partir/ *je veux que je parte", Cahiers de grammaire!,
Toulouse-Le Mirail.
Sadock, J.M. 1985, "Autolexical syntax: a theory of noun incorporation and similar
phenomena", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 379-439.
Sadock, J. 1991, Autolexical syntax: a theory of parallel grammatical
representations, Chicago University Press.
Safir, K. 1982, Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, dissertation.
Safir, K. 1985, Syntactic Chains, Cambridge University Press (publication of Safir

(1981)).
Safir, K. and D. Pesetsky 1981, "Inflection, inversion and subject clitics", in
Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics
Society.
Sandfeld, . and Olsen, . 1936, Syntaxe roumaine, Paris.
Scha, R. 1981, "Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification", in J.
Groenendijk et al., eds., Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam:
Mathematical Center. [Reprinted in J. Groenendijk et al., eds. 1984, Truth,
Interpretation and Information. Dordrecht: Foris]
Shibatani, M. and T. Kageyama 1988, "Word formation in a modular theory of
grammar", Language 64, 3, 451-485.
Simatos, I. 1987, Elements pour une theorie des expressions idiomatiques, These
de doctorat, Universite Paris 7.
Simatos, I. 1990 "Une question d'argumentation: Le cas des expressions
idiomatiques", Le Gre des langues 1,1, 65-81.
Sloan, K. 1988 "What Does Everyone Have Scope Over?", Glow newsletter.
Sloan, K. 1991 "Quantifier-Wh Interaction", MITWPL 15.
Sobin, N. 1985 "On Case Assignment in Ukrainian Morphological Passive
Constructions", Linguistic Inquiry 16, 649-662.
Speas, M. 1986, Adjunctions and Projections in Syntax, PH.D., MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Sportiche, D. 1988, "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for
Constituent Structure", Linguistic Inquiry 19; 3, 425-449.
Steriade, D. 1980, "On the Derivation of Genitival Relatives in Romance", Syntax
Generals paper, MIT.
Steriade, D. 1981, "Clitic Doubling in the Romanian WH Constructions and the
Analysis of Topicalization", Papers from the Regional Meeting, C.L.S., vol. 1617.
Stowell, T. 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sufier, M. 1986, "On the Referential Properties of Embedded Finite Clause
Subjects", in I. Bordelois, H. Contreras, and K. Zagona (eds), Generative
Studies in Spanish Syntax, 183-196, Foris Publications.
Suner, M. 1988, "The Role of AGR(eement) in Clitic-Doubled Constructions",
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6,3, pp 391-434.
Swart, H. de 1992, "Intervention Effects, Monotonicity and Scope", in C. Barker
and D. Dowty, eds. SALT II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on
Semantics and Linguistic Theory (OSU WPL 40), Columbus, the Ohio State
University.
Szabolcsi, A. and F. Zwarts 1990, "Semantic Properties of Composed Functions
and the Distribution of WH-phrases", in Stokhof-Torenvliet, eds. Proceedings
of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium, december 19-22, 1989, ITLI, 529-555.
Szabolcsi, A. 1992, "Weak Islands, Individuals and Scope", in C. Barker and D.
Dowty, eds. SALT II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and
Linguistic Theory (OSU WPL 40), Columbus, the Ohio State University.
Tiktin, H. 1891 (3rd ed. 1945) Gramatica romn.
Tomaselli, A. 1987, "On the pronominal nature of Comp in German", ms.,
Universit di Pavia.
Travis, L. 1984 Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, MIT PhD
dissertation.
Bibliography
289
Vergnaud, J.R. 1985, Dependances etniveaux de reprdsentations en syntaxe, These

de Doctorat d'Etat, Universite Paris 7.
Vergnaud, J.R. 1985, Dependances et niveau de reprsentations en syntaxe,
Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Vergnaud, J.R. 1987, "An Integrated Theory of Constituents Structure", GLOW
Conference, Venice.
Williams, E. 1979, "Passive", mimeographed, University of Massachussets.
Williams, E. 1980, 'Predication', Linguistic Inquiry 11:1,203-238.
Williams, E.S. 1986, "A Reassignment of the Functions of LF", Linguistic Inquiry
17, 2, 265-301.
Williams, E.S. 1988, "Is LF Distinct from S-Structure? A Reply to May",
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1, 135-146.
Zagona, K. 1988, Verb Phrase Syntax, A Parametric Study of English and Spanish,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Zanuttini, R. 1989, 'The structure of negative clauses in Romance', NELS 20, pp.
517-530.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1982, La construction se-moyen du frangais et son Statut dans le
triangle: moyen, passif, reflechi', Linguisticae Investigationes.
Zwicky, A.M. 1971 "In a manner of speaking", Linguistic Inquiry 2, 223-233.
Zwicky, A.M. 1977 'On Clitics', paper presented at the 3rd International
Phonologie-Tagung at the University of Vienna, 1976, Indiana University
Linguistics Club, Bloomington.
Zwicky, A.M., and G.K. Pullum 1982 Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't,
Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.
Index of Names
Abney, S 56,242
Afarli, T 193, 194
Akmajian, S., 1, 45
Alsina, . E., 61
Aoun, ., IX, 50, 198, 200, 217, 224,
231
Avram, L, 46
Ayoub, G 105
Azoulay, ., 243
Baker, ., , XIII, 9, 13, 29, 38, 51,
52, 61, 128, 131, 139, 153, 194
Bartsch, R 246, 255
Barwise, J. 206, 226
Belletti, ., , XII, XIII, 8, 15, 51, 89,
130, 139, 168, 169, 170, 175, 178,
185, 195
Bennis H.,1
den Besten, H 12, 20, 22, 50, 52, 54,
96, 102, 105
Blinkenberg, ., 136
Bonet i Alsina . E., 61
Borer, ., VIII, 50, 93, 110, 114, 120,
198, 200, 217, 250
Bouchard, D 93, 114, 115, 120
Bredemeier, J., 23, 70
Bresnan, J., 106
Burzio, L 130, 136, 147, 169, 185,
Cardinaletti, ., 166, 242
Chomsky, N 1, 4, 8, 16, 24, 29, 30, 31,
37, 39, 45, 53, 58, 61, 80, 90, 91,
111, 114, 118, 120, 121, 130, 137,
141, 142, 151, 153, 168, 169, 180,
184, 188, 191, 196, 199, 200, 201,
203, 208, 211, 218, 237, 238, 241,
244, 253, 264
Chung, S 261,
Cinque, G IX, , XIV, 98, 128, 154,
183, 184, 185, 199, 206, 211, 218,
219, 220, 228, 233, 238, 240, 241,
243, 264, 265, 266, 268, 271, 273,
Comorovski, I., 199, 266, 268, 271,
Contreras, H., 37
Cooper, 206, 226
Couquaux, D 148, 175,
Culicover, P., 45
Dasgupta, P. 235, 253
Davidson, D., 143
Demonte, V., 238,
Diesing, M 249, 252
Dobrovie-Sorin, C IXf, 23, 28, 37,

114, 145, 147, 200, 203, 213,
227, 232, 235, 242, 246, 252,
256, 266,
Dubuisson, C., 96
Emonds, J., 1, 6, 4, 9, 45, 96, 158,
, M 105, 252, 253
Engdahl, E 204,
Everaert, M 120,
Fabb, N., 38
Farkas, D., 103, 200, 235, 257
Fassi-Fehri, .,
Fiengo, R , 246
Fodor, J., 236
Frampton, 266, 271
Fukui, N 37
Galves, C 135
Giorgi, 274
Giusti , 242
Givon, T 181
Gleitman, L VIII,
Godard, D 94
Gold in, M 175
Goldsmith J., 96
Grimshaw, J., VIII, 7, 17, 31, 100,
139
Grosu, ., 125, 213
Gruber, J. 145, 181
Guiron, J., 1
Guju-Romalo, V., 46
Haider, H 88, 100, 103, 122
Haik, I., 233
Hale, ., VIII, 136
Halle, M 61, 76
Harlow, S 87
Hausser, R 247
Heim, I., 226, 233, 242, 243, 246,
275,
Higginbotham, J., 143, 191, 248
Hoekstra, T 1, 30, 105, 136, 182
Hoji, H 231
Holmberg, ., 56
de Hoop, ., 244, 253
Hopper, P. J., 136
Hornstein, ., 196f
Horvath, J., 125, 213
Huang, J., VIII, 135, 231,248
Huot, H 82
Hyams, N 169
Hurtado, ., 200
Jackendoff, R 45, 224
Jaeggli, O., IXf, , XII, 50, 59, 90,
127, 128, 130, 131, 137, 153,
103,
219,
253,
163
103,
264,
121,
193,
Index of Names 291

197, 194, 200, 201, 202, 217, 232,
237, 238, 251
Jakubowicz, C 120, 124
Johnson, ., X, 9, 38
Jong, F.M.G. de, 246
. Kageyama, 122
Kaisse, ., 49
Kayne, R.S., 9, 12, 21, 31, 47, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 56, 70, 77, 82, 83, 95, 96,
97, 113, 163, 185, 184, 186
Keenan, E 246, 247, 255
Kempchinsky, P., 120
Keyser, J. K 136, 145
Kiss, . K 274
Kitagawa, Y 37
Klavans, J., 49
Kok, A. 70,
Koopman, H., 51
Koster, J., 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119,
124
Kratzer, 144
Kripke, S. 207, 225
Kroch, ., 266
Kuroda, S.Y., 37
Laka, I., 58, 102
Landman, F., 270
Lasnik , H 246
Lefebvre, C VIII
Lema, J.,1, 21, 28, 29, 30, 32, 39
Li, T.A, 321
Lieber, R.7, 50, 83, 84, 100
Longobardi, 274
Manzini, M. R 93, 114, 115, 169, 178,
185
Marantz, ., 49, 58, 71, 127, 128, 130,
131, 139, 153, 194
May, R., XIV, 224, 225, 226, 229, 230,
242, 246
Milner, J.-C., Xf, 139, 162
Milsark, G 206, 242
Mulden, R 182
Muysken, P., VIII
Mohanan, . T 112
Motapanyane, V., 12, 147
Napoli, D. J., 175
Naro, ., XI, 175, 178, 179
Nilson, E 239
Obenauer, H 199, 242, 250, 267
Olsen, H 178, 197, 214, 239
Ouhalla, J., 29
Ozkaragoz, I., 181
Pan-Dindelegan, G 175, 178
Partee, B 105, 225
Perlmutter, D.M., 136, 179, 181, 210
Pesetsky, D XIV,
126, 206, 211, 252,
266
Picallo, C., 120, 124, 126
Pinker, S VIII,
Platzack, C., 4, 28, 100, 167
Pollock, J.-Y., XII, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 50, 82,
83, 84, 88, 92, 100, 103, 140, 160,
163, 164, 193, 200, 274, 253
Postal, P., 176
G.K. Pullum, 49, 51
Raposo, E., 15, 135
Reinhart, T 54, 90, 110, 203, 225, 226,
246, 247, 249, 255
Reuland, E., 141, 180
Riemsdijk, H 233, 242, 244
Rivero, M.-L., XII, 1, 11, 14, 21, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 39, 52, 64, 68, 69, 74, 79,
97, 103, 120, 126
Rivifere, N 130, 142
Rizzi, L 7, 12, 25, 29, 32, 50, 54, 61,
77, 82, 87, 91, 95, 96, 114, 120, 132,
133, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 145,
147, 148, 151, 152, 167, 169, 171,
184, 192, 199, 265, 266, 267, 268,
271
Roberts, I., , XIII, 7, 9, 16, 25, 29, 38,
47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 61, 67, 82, 96
Rochette, ., 51, 123
Ross, J. R., 1, 45
Rouveret, ., 1, 52, 87, 107, 135
Ruwet, N 120, 125, 155
Sadock, J.M., 49, 103
Safir, K 106, 126
Sag, I., 236
Sandfeld, K 178, 197, 214, 239
Scha, R 246, 255
Shibatani, M.
Simatos, I., 155, 156
Sloan, K 231
Sobin, N 193
Speas, M., 37
Sportiche, D XI, 9, 37, 88, 92, 203
Stavi J., 247
Steele, 1, 45
Steriade, D 198, 200, 210, 217, 239,
253
Stowell, T 84, 105, 158
Sufier, M 120, 200, 216
Swart, H 274
Szabolcsi, ., 268, 270, 271, 274,
F. Zwarts , 268, 271
Thomson S.A., 136
Tiktin, ., 80
Tomaselli, ., 167

Travis, L 13, 29, 51, 61, 92
Vergnaud, J.R., 100, 156, 200, 238, 276
Verkuyl H.J., 246
Wasow , 1, 45
Williams, ., XIV, 112, 163, 231, 232,
233, 242
Zagona, K 30, 37
Zanultini, R 6, 56, 63, 95, 102
Zribi-HerU, ., 130, 155, 172, 174
Zwicky, A.M., 49, 51, 163,
Subject Index
1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law, 176

A (infinitival particle),
A'-binding, 265
A'-licensers, 26Iff
A'-movement, 217f, 265
A'-position, 89f, 99, 104
Adverbs
monosyllabic, 10
in auxiliary structures, 14
Affix, 49, 51
hopping, 47
incorporation, 84
AGR, 8, 18, 44, 51, 90, 100, 122
anaphoric, 115-117
and nominative clitics, 184
Agreement Comp/Infl, 126
Anaphor, 115, 121
contextual, 116
lexical, 171, 191
Arguments
null pronominal, 135,
null prototypical, 132, 138, 145
and saturation in the Lexicon, 135
Argument Structure, 139
Autolcxical syntax, 103f
Auxiliaries, 1, 27, 36, 78
Aux-to-Comp, 12, 15
Aux-to-I, 16
auxiliary-verb inversion, 10, 27, 31, 33
biclausal auxiliary structure, 14, 18, 23,
40
embedded, 41,45
functional/weak, 32
perfect ( f i ; Romanian), 41
position of, 4
structure of auxiliary constructions, 17
and IP-structure, 37, 39, 45
and Tense features, 5, 14, 15
and theta-role assignment, 1
and theia-marking, 30
and Tense-marking, 31
and the Tense-filter, 40
Avoid Pronoun, 121
Barrier, 253
Binding Theory
principle A of the, 115
principle C of the, 147, 203f
Case
and empty categories, 238
assignment, 238
inherent, 238
nominative, 90
objective, 238
C-command, 54, 147
and scope, 231
Chains
and indexing, 150, 154, 171, 187
and raising, 119
clitic, 190
links of, 120, 125
passive se, 190
Clefts, 214, 271
Clitic, XI, 49, 65, 73, 95
adverbs, 11, 26, 42, 63, 66, 77
auxiliaries, 15, 46
chains, 190, 192
chains and reconstruction, 190
climbing, 76
clusters, 62-64, 78
traces, 174, 189
doubling, 90f, 192, 197, 199, 228
endoclitic pronouns, 78
host of, 51
Clitic Left Dislocation, 240
licensing of, 56,190
nominative, 184
phonological, 49, 70
placement, 50, 53
pronouns, 21, 60
R-clitics, 201f
splitting, 23
syntactic, 49
and V-to-I movement, 47
verb-clitic order, 52, 57, 60, 67, 96
COMP, 84, 95, 127
COMP/Infl adjacency, 87, 98
COMP/Infl ambiguity, 87, 93, 98-99,
106
doubly filled, 86, 107
Complementizer
indicative (c), 104, 124
infinitive (a), 82, 109
subjunctive (ca, s), 109, 123f
deletion, 97
Complex NP Constraint, 236
Control, 36, 91-93, 114-115, 125
obligatory, 117
of infinitival complements, 91
of subjunctive complements, 112
Crossover
strong, 203f
weak, 202, 248, 250, 252, 263, 277
Detransivization, 245
Determiner, 242
as operator, 261
cardinal, 246
partitive, 247
Phrase, 242
Raising, 242, 250
strong, 242,276
symmetric, 247
weak, 242, 247
Discourse Linking, 207, 248, 252, 258,
268ff, 272
D-linked Adjuncts, 271
D-linked WH-phrases, 271
Dutch, 119
ECP, see Empty Category Principle
Empty Categories
A'-bound, 260
identification of, 188
Empty Category Principle, 29, 237, 253,
263, 265, 268
and Long Head Movement, 28, 32, 57
Enclisis, 70, 75, see also Clitic
English, 1-6, 10, 12ff, 21, 36ff, 47, 81ff,
88ff, 112ff, 163
Excorporation, 53, 67
Extended Projection, 7f, 34, 103
Feature percolation, 204, 228, 242
locality constraints on, 208
Floating quantifiers, 14
Focus, 220
Movement, 244
French, XIII, 1, 6, 9-13, 26, 32, 36-38,
46-49, 52, 63, 80, 82, 84, 87, 95, 99,
106, 113, 116, 125, 128-130, 133136, 140-150, 154-157, 162-175,
179, 181, 193, 199, 205, 211, 218,
224, 243, 253, 260ff, 265, 270
Full Interpretation Principle, 141, 175
Functional
adjunction, 17
categories,
coindexation, 17, 33, 40, 56, 65, 88f,
101, 104, 123
projections, 7, 18
German, 165
Governing Category, 121
Government, 30
antecedent, 29, 265
canonical, 275
head, 265
theta , 30
direction of, 92f
proper government, 29
Governor
minimal, 123, 127
Head to head movement, 7

long, 27
Head Movement Constraint, 29, 58
Idiomatic Expressions, 155, 172, 174
Impersonals
passive, 141, 149, 153f, 193
passive (in German), 165
Incorporation, 51, 244
affix, 84
and Determiner Raising, 245
functional, 7, 100
restructuring, 21, 56, 58, 61, 65, 84,
101, 104, 123
Indefinites
and clitic doubling, 224
and prepositional accusatives, 224
readings of, 223ff
Indexation
anaphoric, 171, 191
and reference, 149, 192
assignment of indices, 150, 167, 187,
191
constraints on, 151, 154
referential indices, 153,191, 266
Indirect Objects
and interpretation, 237
Infinitives
a-less and auxiliaries, 20, 24
a-less and modals
a-less and wh-phrases
a-less and raising, 84
IP-structure of,
Infinitival particle,
see Complementizer
Infi, IX, 83-85, 93-95
participial, 31f, 47
adjunction to, 50
Infl-to-Comp (I-to-C) movement, 12,
55, 67, 97, 101
Infl-to-Comp in auxiliary constructions,
20, 23, 72, 79
Infl-to-Comp in embedded clauses, 21
I(nfl)P
structure, XI, 37, 99
adjunction to, 53
Interrogatives, 239
Intransitives, XII, 128, 136
and Case Theory, 131, 140, 194
and lexical structure, 140
and subject inversion, 145
Islands, 198
wh-islands, 198f
weak islands, 265ff, 273
Subject Index
L-marking, 252
and th-government, 30
and Tense-marking, 30
Left dislocation, 109
and scope phenomena, 222
Clitic, 218
standard,218
Lexicalist Hypothesis, 50
Logical Form (LF), 196, 223, 242
and semantic interpretation, 225ff, 243
and scope assignment, 230
Merging, 18, 33, 57-59, 80
Modals, 2, 24
Move a, 217, 241,243
Minimality
relativized, 33, 265
Negation, 6, 23f, 55, 58f, 68, 84, 95,
100-102
Noun Phrases
amount reading of, 244, 277
closed, 248
existential reading of, 247, 275
interpretation of, 222, 243-247
NP Prefixing, 243
NP Raising, 233, 243
open, 245
partitive, 252
presuppositional reading of, 246, 277
referential reading of, 248
quantified, 223, 242
strong, 206f, 228,
weak, 206f, 224, 228
Nuclear Scope, 276
Null Operators, 213, 260
Obviation, 113, 120-121
lack of, 124, 125
Operators, 241, 249, 262
Parameters, Vllf, XIII
and levels of representation, VIII
and the Lexicon, VIII
null subject parameter, 135, 146ff, 167
structural quantifier parameter, 213
Parasitic Gaps, 203
Passives, X
and case absorption, 153, 194
and Case Assignment, 193
and the Case Filter, 131
and Case Theory, 129ff, 153
and external theta-roles, 129
and null prototypical objects, 131 f
copula, 128, 153, 168
impersonal, (in German), 165
with intransitives, 129ff, 137, 153
with transitives, 129ff, 137
295
Portuguese, 15, 28, 35, 126, 135, 175

Predication, 107, 170
Prepositional Accusatives, 208, 251
and referentiality, 252
and specificity, 234
pro
content licensing of, 142, 160
in impersonal constructions, 141
PRO, 114
governed, 119
obligatory, 119
Projection
matching, 122
Projection Principle, 137ff
(A) Putea 'may, can', 24, 27, 35, 43, 64,
78
Quantification, 196
and interpretation, 222
and left dislocation, 218
diagnostics of, 202
domain of, 206
features, 204
over individuals, 256
over sets, 256
percolation of features, 204
restricted, 246, 249, 277
unrestricted, 247, 277
Quantified expressions
and scope, 222, 229
in A'-positions, 234
in situ, 234
interpretation of, 222, 234
Quantified Pronouns, 257
Quantifier Construal, 242
Quantifier Raising (QR), 211, 223, 242
and interpretation, 225ff
conditions on, 227
Quantifiers, 204, 227, 242
bare, 206, 223, 254, 268
bare wh-, 262
restricted, 206
strong, 206
structural, 211
weak, 206
Raising, 2, 18, 36, 125
out of subjunctive clauses, 113, 118-120
and chain-structure, 119
Reconstruction, 264, 266
Referential
expressions, 236, 266
features, IX
Referentiality, 248, 266
and chains, IX
296
The syntax of
Romanian

Relative Clauses, 239
Scope, 222
ambiguities, 229
and bare quantifiers, 274
and weak islands, 273
narrow, 231, 274
Scope Principle, 230, 236
Se (French, Romanian); si (Italian), Xff
and unaccusatives, 179ff
constructions, 179
middle, 128, 168, 183
middle and case assignment, 184
middle and intrantisitives, 167, 169,
172
subject, 175,183
Sentential complements, 157
Spanish, XIII, 15f, 28, 32, 35, 48f, 52,
123, 147f, 163f, 169, 175, 178ff,
197f, 199-202, 211, 216, 218, 224f,
235f, 237ff, 251, 260ff
Specificity
and prepositional accusatives, 224, 234
Specifier
of functional heads, 103
(Spec, IP), If, 37, 98, 104
Structural quantifier parameter, 213
Structure preservation, 7, 53f
Stylistic Inversion (French), 163
Subject
Subject-Auxiliary/Verb inversion, 12,
14, 15
in auxiliary constructions, 19
in raising constructions, 19
of infinitives, 89, 126
of subjunctives, 126
positions, 7, 9f, 37, 92f
postverbal, 145ff
Subjunctive
complements, 44
particle (s), 93, 98, 103
and raising verbs, 19
Superiority Effects, 211
Tense
marking, 31, 38
features, 105
filter, 38
anaphoric, 105
projection of, 100
and infinitives, 88f
Theta Criterion, 187
Theta theory
and raising, 119

external th-role, 19
identification, 143
referential th-role, 265, 272
Topicalization, 219, 273
Trace
NP-trace, 119
Unaccusatives, 136
and intransitives, 182
and passive se, 179
and passivization, 181
Variables, 201
and scope, 231
individual, 250
pronominal, 256
VeA
V-preposing, 55
V-projection, 108
V-to-I raising, 7, 15, 47
Verb-second, 15, 5 5 , 6 1
and the distribution of adverbs, 8
and the distribution of floating
quantifiers, 8
Wackernagel's law, 80
Weak islands, 265f
and adjuncts, 272
and referentiality, 266f, 271
and scope, 273f
Well-Formedness Condition on Chains,
241
WH-agreement, 260
WH-configurations, 260
WH-islands
constraints on, 199
WH-movement, 197, 217, 273
locality of, 266
long, 268
WH-phrases
and case, 209
and clitic doubling, 199, 202
and pide-piping, 198, 212
and quantification, 204, 218
WH-strategies, 263
WH-structures, 196
and quantification, 210
Word order
VSO, 13f, 106

The Syntax of Romanian

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Syntax of Romanian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Syntax of Romanian

Studies in Generative Grammar

The Syntax of Romanian

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Die Deutsche Bibliothek Cataloging-in-Publication

Copyright 1993 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin.

1.1. Auxiliary constructions

2. Clitic Placement and the rule of Move I-to-C

2. 1. Cliticization in Romance languages

The Syntax of Romanian

3. The constituent structure of infinitives and subjunctives

3. 1. The constituent structure of infinitival clauses

4. Subject anaphors in subjunctive clauses

4. 1. The data: control, subject raising and obviation

5. Copula passives and middle/passive se with (in)transitives

5. 1.2. Null prototypical arguments: saturation in the Lexicon

6. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification

1. Quantification and movement in wh-structures

XII The Syntax of Romanian

7. What does QR raise?

7. 1. Two LF rules: NPR and DR

XIV The syntax of Romanian

It is clear that parameters represent a powerful descriptive device, which should

a. Binding nodes are NP, S', (AP), (PP), (S).

As observed by Lefebvre and Muysken, the explanatory power of this kind of

XVI The syntax of Romanian

XVIII The syntax of Romanian

constituent; I therefore assume no AGRP, either under or above TenseP (see

XX The syntax of Romanian

1. Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents

a. Auxiliaries are verbs which present a defective lexical structure,

Romanian auxiliaries do not select a VP complement; they select a CP

2 The syntax of Romanian

Romanian modals may select a VP complement.

a. Copi vor (*a) pleca la mare.

Je vais [ip PRO lui dcrire]

Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents 3

Mary him will invite for sure,

vom / voi vep /ei

I will-1st p/ you will-2nd / he will-3rd leave ..

a. eu vreau /tu vrei/el vrea /noi vrem / voi vrefi...

[a vrea 'to want']

eu a / tu ai / el ar /noi am / voi ap/ei ar pleca

I would-1st / you would-2nd p/ he would-3rd leave ..

4 The syntax of Romanian

them as monoclausal constructions involving an auxiliary verb of the type defined

Auxiliaries select a VP complement.

Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents

(I) have-lst / you have-2nd / ...eaten

I / you / ....had eaten

b. you have eaten / gone

b. I had eaten/1 had left

6 The syntax of Romanian

(unaccusatives, transitives or intransitives). This difference between (10) and (14)

Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents

sentences in which an auxiliary, that we provisionally assume to stand under Infi, is

8 The syntax of Romanian

Elevii mei vd des filme bune.

Auxiliaries and the structure of IP constituents 9

(iv) Elevii ti au citit top un poem de Verlaine.

a. *les Sieves tous 6criront

tous [Vp ecrit un poeme]]]

10 The syntax of Romanian