ROMANIAN POSSESSIVES: ADJECTIVES OR PRONOUNS? A .

2y ago
73 Views
2 Downloads
370.99 KB
33 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Bria Koontz
Transcription

ROMANIAN POSSESSIVES: ADJECTIVES ORPRONOUNS? A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVEALEXANDRA CORNILESCU and ALEXANDRU NICOLAE1. The Problem1.1. As often noticed, Romanian has both Genitive personal pronouns and possessiveadjectives (henceforward PA), forms with pronominal meaning and adjectival agreement:(1)a1.a2.b1.b2.cartea /cărŃile /câinele boy.the.gencartea /cărŃile /câinele ea /cărŃile /câinele boy.the.gencarteasa/ cărŃilesalebook.the(FEM.SG)his/her.FEM.SG books.the (FEM.PL)his/her.FEM.PLcâinelesău/ câiniisăihis/her.MASC.SG dogs.the (MASC.PL) his/her.MASC.PLdog.the(MASC.SG)It is the latter which have always represented a theoretical difficulty through theirparadoxical adjectival and pronominal properties.Other Romance languages have also been described as having both possessiveadjectives and personal pronouns in the Genitive, but their distribution is clearly different: forinstance, in French possessives are pre-nominal and function as definite determiners, whilepersonal pronouns in the Genitive are post-nominal, marked by the Genitive Preposition DE:(2)a.b.mon livremy booklivre de moibook of mine(French)The two French phrases in (2) are not synonymous (cf. Milner 1982). The Genitivepronoun is specialized for certain theta-role, like Agent, so that one reading of (2b) may be‘book authored by me’; in contrast (2a) is ambiguous, allowing for the interpretation of moiboth as a Possessor and an Agent.The theoretical problem raised by PAs is what we might call the “possessive paradox”:why forms which function as pronouns should have the morphology and (in many languages) thedistribution of adjectives?111

1.2. The aim of the paper is to propose an account of the “possessive paradox”,starting from a more detailed presentation of Romanian data, against the background of recentminimalist theory (Baker & Vinokurova 2010, Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2009,Pesetsky & Torrego 2007). The analysis will briefly be extended to French as well as to thePAs of Slavic languages.The analysis starts from the obvious empirical fact that PAs alternate with nominal orpronominal Genitives in realizing Possessors and other arguments of nouns, and pursues theintuition that arguments of nouns undergo adjectivization in contexts where the Genitive as astructural case cannot be licensed. Adjectivization and the assignment of the Genitive case arealternative means of showing the syntactic dependence of one DP (the argument) on another(the head). PAs are viewed as mixed categories, specifically, derivationally created“adjectivized” DPs. Adjectivization by-passes the problem of Case-licensing, since adjectivesdo not need case and may share the case of the noun they modify. In licensing a PA, it isessential that the possessed NP and the Possessor DP find themselves in a sufficiently localconfiguration permit agreement (feature sharing).After this succinct introduction, in sections 2 5 we propose a detailed analysis ofRomanian PAs, taking advantage of earlier work on Romanian Genitives. Romanian is a relevantcase for understanding PAs in as much as in Romanian PAs and Genitive pronouns as well asGenitive DPs have the same range of interpretations and the same distribution; this helps us focuson the particular morphosyntactic features which are responsible for the impossibility of Genassignment with the subsequent adjectivization of the respective DPs.In section 6 we briefly examine French, regarding two of its properties: a) possessiveadjectives are licensed in a position different from nominal Genitives or strong pronominalGenitives (compare: le livre de Jean ‘John’s book’, son livre ‘his book’); b) French PAs aredefinite determiners1.2. Romanian Possessive AdjectivesRomanian Genitive or Genitive-like pronominal forms exhibit an irregular paradigm.The personal pronouns have genitival forms only for the 3rd and 6th person. In contrast, PAs areavailable for persons 1-to-5. This raises the problem of why sixth person PAs should bemissing, and of whether this gap is accidental or it is a reflex of a deeper property.A significant fact for the analysis that follows is that both Genitival pronouns and PAsappear either as “bare”, when they immediately follow the head noun bearing the suffixaldefinite article, or they are preceded by the genitival article AL, in all the other contexts (seefor details Cornilescu 1992, 1995, 2003, Vasilescu 2005/2008, GBLR 2010).(3)a.b.c.1caietulluinotebook.the hisun caieta /her.MASCThis analysis may also be extended to Slavic possessive adjectives, which may be DP- andnoun-based (cf. Corbett 1987). The licensing mechanism for both is the same as in French or Romanian,even if at first sight Slavic pronominal PAs appear to be invariably marked for Genitive case instead ofshowing case-concord with the modified noun. Noun-based PAs show case-concord just Romanian PAdo.112

d.(4)un caietalsăua notebook(MASC)ALhis/her.MASCNom Personal PronounPossessive adjectivePerson 1Person 2Person 3cartea meacartea tacartea saPerson 4Person 5Person 6eutueleanoivoiei, eleGenitive Personal Pronouncartea luicartea eicartea noastrăcartea voastrăcartea lorLet us start the analysis by surveying the adjectival vs. pronominal properties of theseforms.2.1. Adjectival Properties of Possessive AdjectivesA. Morphologically, possessives are four form adjectives; moreover the morphologicalmaterial they exhibit is identifiable as adjectival; streour.FEM.PLalbastreblue.FEM.PLFurthermore, they exhibit the same case homonymy pattern as regular adjectives: in themasculine they have the same form for all cases (Nom/Acc/Gen/Dat), but they show casevariation in the singular feminine, where the form of the Gen/Dat is different from that of .the(MASC) N(MASC)carteameabook.the(FEM) umy.(GEN).MASC.SGgreuhard(GEN).MASC.SG113

my.GEN.FEM.SGgrelehard.GEN.MASC.SGB. As is probably obvious by now, the clearest adjectival property from a syntacticperspective is number, gender and case concord with the modified PL.NOMC. Distributionally speaking, the adjectival character of PA is not so obvious inRomanian on account of the genitival article, but it is clear in languages like (standard) Italian(examples from Longobardi 1994):(8)a.b.iltheilthevecchio n still other languages (French), possessives are definite ench)In Romanian too, cliticized PAs may function as definite determiners, this being one ofthe few contexts where PAs and genitival pronouns do not show the same behavior; in suchcases, PAs are added to the indefinite, often truncated indefinite kinship nouns, in what lookslike a genuine Romanian construct state construction:(10)a.b.tatălluifather.the(MASC.SG) histac-sufather his/her MASC.SG//eiher/săuhis/her.MASC.SG*tac-luifather hisLongobardi (1994) parametrizes languages into those where possessives aredeterminers (French, English) and those where they are adjectives (Italian).Given the morphology of Romanian PAs, many researchers have categorized them asadjectives: GA 1963: 155 159, Hristea 1984: 230, Avram 1986: 131 134, GBLR 2010:114

121 126. In a more general analysis of Romance possessive pronominals, Ihsane (2008) alsodiscusses Italian possessives as adjectives.2.2. Pronominal PropertiesOn the other hand syntactic and semantic arguments overwhelmingly tilt the balance infavor of analyzing possessives as pronouns, i.e. DPs. An excellent presentation of the DPproperties of Romanian PAs is available in Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea (2010), from whomsome of the following facts are drawn.A. Possessives are assigned theta roles, a DP property. Recall that adjectives assigntheta roles, rather than being theta-marked. In particular, PA thus license eventnominalizations, like Genitive personal pronouns and Genitive DPs:(11)Venireasa/lui/ la putere s-a petrecut acum doi ani.in power took place ago two yearscomming.the (FEM.SG) his/her.FEM.SG his“His coming to power took place two years ago”This may indicate that the PA merges as a complement of the deverbal noun and onlylater assumes the form of an adjective.B. Variation for Person is a strikingly pronominal property, and it is indeed unusualfor adjectives, which are lexical categories, to exhibit variation for Person, a suralgrey.MASC.SG /your/*.MASC.SGC. Functional competition with Genitive DP. As already noticed PAs may replaceGenitive DPs, moreover, since, at least in event nominalization there is only one Genitiveposition, PAs are in complementary distribution with lexical and pronominal -thecasahouse-theMarieiMaria-the.OBL( GEN/DAT)meamy.FSGdistrugereaoraşuluide cătreduşmanidestruction.the city.the.GENbyenemies*distrugerea luiaoraşuluidestruction.the EM.SG ereichiar de el însuşidestruction.the work.the.GEN right by him himself*distrugerea luiaopereidestruction.the destruction.the(FEM.SG) his/her.FEM.SG AL*distrugerea lui IonaopereiALwork.the.GENdestruction.the GEN Ion115

This goes to show that, in Romanian, the syntax of PAs is that of Genitive phrase.D. Binding Theoretic Evidence. The strongest evidence for DP status is bindingtheoretic. In spite of their adjectival morphology, possessives behave like referential phrases(bind theoretic pronouns). It is revealing to compare PA and ethnic adjectives. Both appear torealize some theta role (say, Agent) in the lexical structure of the head noun, but their behaviorunder Binding conditions is very different. Ethnic adjectives behave like bona fide adjectivesregarding binding, i.e., categorically they are APs or NPs (cf. Fábregas 2007). An essentialempirical fact is that, unlike ethnic or other thematic adjectives, PAs can function as antecedentsof reflexive pronouns, satisfying Condition A of Binding Theory. Recall that only argumentalreferential DPs may antecede reflexives in a local domain (the governing .SGopinion.the(FEM)opiniaamericanilor/ lortheiropinion.theAmerican.the.GENnoi înşineourselvesdespre ei înşişiabout themselvesdespre ei înşişiabout themselvesSimilarly, notice the following contrast in Italian, where possessive and ethnicadjectives occupy the same adjectival position, but only the former can antecede reflexives:(16)a.b.ilnostrogiudiziotheour.MASC.SG opinion‘our opinion about sunoi stessiabout ourselves(Italian)susè stessiabout themselvesE. Furthermore, as insightfully remarked by Dobrovie & Giurgea 2010, in Romanianpossessives may take secondary predicates, a property possible only for arguments:(17)a.opozăameaapicture(FEM) ALmy.FEM.SG‘a picture of me when I was blond’(18)a.*vizita americanăînarmatpână în dinŃivisit.the Americanarmedto the teethinvaziaamericanuluiînarmatpână în dinŃiinvasion.theAmerican.the.GENarmedto the teethvizitaluiînarmatpână în dinŃivisit.thehisarmedto the teethvizitasaînarmatpână în dinŃito the teethvisit.the(FEM) his/her.FEM.SG armedb.c1.c2.blondblond.MASC.SGThe possessor may control a small clause subject; this is a property typical ofargumental DPs. On the other hand the contrast between lui and sa ((18c1) vs (18c2)) showsthat sa behaves like an adjective, copying the φ-features of the possessed object.116

F. Finally, a Genitive pronoun/possessive adjective, but not a thematic adjective mayantecede an appositive relative clause (pronoun):(19)Cesămaispunem dedisputanoastră,what SUBJ stillsay.1PL about dispute.the(FEM)our.FEM.SGcare ne înŃelegeam înainte atât de binewellwhich got-along(1PL) before so‘Not to mention the dispute between us, who used to get along so well.’To conclude, as stressed by Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2010, the evidence in favor ofthe DP status of PAs is decisive. Given this amount evidence, other researchers havecategorized possessives as pronouns, i.e, DPs. Furthermore, PAs have been claimed to bepronouns in the Genitive case (Berceanu 1971: 130, Vasilescu 2005/2008, Vasilescu 2007,Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2010).Inside Romanian, this solution, in a sense, makes matters worse, given that these DPsmay appear to bear two cases. Thus, if PAs are analyzed as Genitive pronouns, the paradoxicalresult is that, given their case-agreement with the possessee, the PA is twice marked for case: itwould be a Genitive (inherently), which is further marked for case by agreement with thepossessee noun. An analysis of this type is developed in Dobrovie Sorin & Giurgea 2010.(20)a1.a2.b1.b2.c.graŃiethanks tograŃiethanks (FEM)intervenŃieisale(outer DAT inner GEN)intervention.the.DAT(FEM) his/her.FEM.SG.DATintervenŃieilui / eiintervention.the.DAT his hercărŃiisale(outer GEN inner GEN)his/her.FEM.SG.DATbook.the.GEN(FEM)cărŃiilui / herbook.the.GEN his/hersa/copertalui / eihis/her.SG.FEM.NOMcover.thehis/herGenerative literature on Romance has also mostly categorized possessives as DPs,usually ignoring the adjectival agreement problem (see for instance, Zribi Hertz 2003,Giorgi & Longobardi 1991, Valois 1991, etc.) A notable exception is Ihsane (2008), whospecifically argues that, from a morphological categorial perspective, Romance possessivesmay be, DPs, APs and clitic heads. In her view, adjectival/determiner status is indicated by thepre-nominal position of PAs in contrast with the post-nominal position of Genitive pronouns,as well as their agreement with the head noun:(21)a.b.monfilsmy.MASC.SG sonlefils de Pierretheson DE Pierre//mafillemy.FEM.SGdaughterlafillede PierrethedaughterDE PierreAs already apparent, from a comparative perspective, both analyses make sense: inFrench possessives are determiners, therefore, pronouns, while in Italian they are adjectives.117

2.3. Result1. Analyses which view possessives as adjectives face serious problems in accountingfor the DP features regarding binding properties, as well as for the competition betweenGenDPs (lexical and pronominal) and possessives.2. Analyses which view them as (Genitive) DPs cannot account for agreement with thehead noun and for the adjectival morphological suffixes on the possessives. At the same time,differences in distribution between Genitive DPs and PAs are unexpected if both are Genitive DPs.Hence the possessive paradox.3. Briefly on Romanian Genitive Syntax3.1 Some Properties of Genitive DPsSince PAs have the distribution of GenDPs, it is incumbent on us to spell out theanalysis of Romanian Genitives that we adopt. What is crucial is that in our view the genitivalarticle AL is created derivationally, and its structure presupposes going through certain steps,in particular undergoing a process of agreement with the head noun. PAs, normally occurringwith AL, like all the other Genitives will go through the same derivational steps. This willsecure the complementary distribution (in Romanian) of PAs and genitival DPs.3.1.1. Two Genitive Functions (Benveniste 1972, Barker 1995)As generally acknowledged, the Gen case has two interpretations in UG, bothavailable to Genitive DPs and PAs. In the first place, it is the case of the Possessor expressingDP internal possession, i.e., it is associated to a particular very abstract theta role (seeGiorgi & Longobardi 1991).(22)echipa lui Ionteam.the GEN Ion/echipa luiteam.the his/echipasateam.the(FEM) his/her.FEM.SGSecondly, the Gen is the case of the internal or external argument of a nominal head(the Objective Genitive and the Subjective Genitive, as insisted upon by Benveniste M) wall.the.GENvizitapreşedintelui /visit.the(FEM) M.SG/sa(Agent)his/her.FEM.SGBoth functions contribute to shaping the grammar of Genitives across languages.3.1.2. Possessor Subject Languages vs. Possessee Subject languagesExtensive research on possessive phrases (e.g., Szabolcsi 1984, 1994, Kayne 1994,Gueron 1985, den Dikken 2006) has shown that possessive phrases should be viewed asincluding a predicative relation between the possessor and the possessee. Recall that apossessive phrase is a DP internal possessee possessor construction which will be calledpossessive DP.Ouhalla (2009), for instance, distinguishes two types of languages in terms of thechoice of the subject in possessee possessor construction. First, there are Possessor Subjectlanguages (English, Hungarian, Amharic, etc.); in this case the possessive DP includes a118

possessor in subject position, while the possessee is the predicate. The analogy with the finitesubject predicate clause structure cannot be missed in languages like English:(24)a.John criticizedthis book.b.John’s criticismof this bookThe clausal parallelism is strengthened in languages like Hungarian, which exhibitPerson Agreement between the possessee-predicate and the possessor-subject; a suffix on thepossessee copies the Person feature of the Possessor, as in the following examples. This maysurely be construed as a form of Subject-Predicate Agreement.(25)a.a (z)(en)1SG‘my house’aJanosDEFJohnDEFb.haz-a- -mhouse-POSS-SG-1SG(Hungarian, apud Szabolcsi 1984)haz-a- - house-POSS-SG-3SGTo account for the syntax of Possessor Subject languages, Zribi-Hertz (2003: 143)adopts the following eiNumNPeiSpecN’DEFaJohnz SJanosz 3SGsgsgtztzhousehaz a(English)(Hungarian)The representation in (26) is straightforward. The FP projection provides a landing sitefor the subject. The F projection contains a Person feature (in addition to a Poss/Gen feature)in some languages (Hungarian), but not in all. According to Zribi-Hertz, in English the nounraises up to Number, while in Hungarian it further raises up to F where it inflects for Personwith the possessor in [Spec, FP].Secondly, there are languages whose possessive DP-phrases exhibit the order posessee possessor, i.e., they are Possessee Subject languages (Hebrew, Maroccan Arabic, Romancelanguages etc.). Ouhalla notices that Possessee initial DPs often contain Dative or Genitive(locative, directional) prepositions, of the belong type; this suggests the existence of aprepositional small clause.119

(27)a.b.(had) l-ktub(this) the-book.PL‘these Nadia’s books’lamaisonthehousedyawl Nadiaof.PL Nadiadeof(from Ouhalla 2009)PierrePierreAgain, the existence of a clausal construction is strongly suggested by the agreementof the prepositional head with the Possessum, which is now the subject, as in examples (27a)(with the agreement feature in bold.) We retain that there is a class of agreeing prepositions inUG; we tentatively suggest that the Romanian genitival article AL should also be analyzed asan agreeing preposition as well.As to the relation between these types of language, some researchers assume

C. Functional competition with Genitive DP. As already noticed PAs may replace Genitive DPs, moreover, since, at least in event nominalization there is only one Genitive position, PAs are in complementary distribution with lexical and pronominal Genitives: (13) a. casa Mariei house-the Maria-the. OBL ( GEN /DAT) b. casa mea house-the my.

Related Documents:

page 20 To choose pronouns appropriately. Pronouns in text page 24 To investigate the use of pronouns. Pronouns in writing page 28 To extend the use of pronouns in writing. oduction oster notes Pronouns (page 10) This poster presents the various words that can function as personal pronouns

3.4.3.2. The long form of the reflexive pronouns 3.4.4. Pronouns of reinforcement 3.4.5. Possessive pronouns and pronominal adjectives 3.4.5.1. The possessive pronominal adjectives in the nominative-accusative case 3.4.5.2. The possessive pronouns in the nominative-accusative case 3.4.5.3. The declension of the posse

Personal Pronouns I, you, he, she Possessive Pronouns my, his, her, mine, ours, theirs Reflexive Pronouns myself, herself, himself Reciprocal Pronouns each other, one another Indefinite Pronouns anything, somebody, everyone, few, both, neither Relative Pronouns who, which, what, that, when, where Inter

Lesson 22 t Intensive and Reflexive Pronouns Reflexive Pronouns Reflexive pronouns are a bit different from the other kinds of pronouns. They cause the verb to reflect back on the subject . In other words, reflexive pronouns are used when the subject of the sentenc

use of nouns, pronouns, adjectives. EP.EA.17 Concrete and abstract topics using irregular nouns, singular and plural, personal and possessive pronouns and adjectives EP.IN.17 Connected text including irregular nouns, personal, possessive pronouns and adjectives with some irregular past tense

ADJECTIVES COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES ADJECTIVES:- An adjective is a word that describes a noun or a pronoun. ADJECTIVES- WORD ORDER When we use two or more adjectives to describe a noun, we have to take care of the word order. The position of the adject

page 2. Grammar Boy’s Pronoun Hunt. 1. I 2. he 3. his 4. ours 5. mine 6. yours 7. she 8. it 9. they Year 4 Grammar: Pronouns Answers page 3, 4. Priscilla Pronoun. Personal Pronouns Possessive Pronoun Relative Pronouns Reflexive Pronouns Demonstrative Pronouns I you he she it we they me him

AKKINENI NAGESWARA RAO COLLEGE, GUDIVADA-521301, AQAR FOR 2015-16 1 The Annual Quality Assurance Report (AQAR) of the IQAC Part – A AQAR for the year 1. Details of the Institution 1.1 Name of the Institution 1.2 Address Line 1 Address Line 2 City/Town State Pin Code Institution e-mail address 08674Contact Nos. Name of the Head of the Institution: Dr. S. Sankar Tel. No. with STD Code: Mobile .