Cover not available
Part of
Biolinguistic Investigations on the Language Faculty
Edited by Anna Maria Di Sciullo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 235] 2016
► pp. 125–144

Object pronouns in the evolution of Romanian

A biolinguistic perspective

| Université du Québec à Montréal
| Université du Québec à Montréal
We examine pronominal objects in Old Romanian and show that the fluctuation in their position (pre-/post-verbal) and in their form (clitic/strong pronoun) is the result of the Directional Asymmetry Principle (DAP), a complexity-reducing principle proposed in Di Sciullo (2011), according to which language evolution is symmetry breaking. We show that DAP is sensitive to both derivational and representational complexity. Under its effects, on grounds of derivational complexity reduction, Romanian lost the discourse-driven verb movement that yielded enclisis. On grounds of representational (sensori-motor) complexity reduction, Romanian lost the use of strong pronouns in contexts that now only allow clitics. Thus, a fluctuating phase in the evolution of pronominal objects is followed by a phase where a preponderant use is attested (i.e. proclitics in Modern Romanian). We confirm previous findings on the diachronic development of the Romanian DP under the effects of DAP, showing the role of complexity reduction in language change.
Published online: 24 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.235.06sci
References (43)
References
Alboiu, G. & Hill, V. 2012. Early Modern Romanian and Wackernagel’s law. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Finland 25: 7–28.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–235. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chiriacescu, S. & von Heusinger, K. 2009. Pe-marking and referential persistence in Romanian. In Focus at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Working Papers of the SFB 732, Vol. 3, A. Riester & E. Onea (eds). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding [Studies in Generative Grammar 9]. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M. & Wiltschko, M. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. 2012. Perspectives on morphological complexity. In Morphology. (Ir)regularity, Frequency, Typology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 322], F. Kiefer, M. Ladanyi & P. Siptar (eds),105–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. A biolinguistic approach to variation. In The Biolinguisitic Entreprise. New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds).Google Scholar
. 2005. Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. On the properties of clitics. In Binding in Romance. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, A.M. Di Sciullo & A. Rochette (eds), 209–223. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Somesfalean, S. 2015. Object pronouns in the evolution of Romanian: a biolinguistic perspective. In Formal Approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, V. Hill (ed.), 269-290. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Nicolis, M. 2013. Third factor in the development of P. In NELS 42. Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, S. Keine & S. Sloggett (eds). Amherst MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Somesfalean, S. 2013. Variation in the position of the definite determiner in Romanian: A biolinguistic perspective. In Romance Linguistics in the Pacific: Variation in Time and Space. Special Issue of the Australian Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 121–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Aguero Bautista, C. 2008. The delay of condition B effect and its absence in certain languages. Language and Speech 51: 77–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. 1978. The verbal complex V’-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 49–77.Google Scholar
Frâncu, C. 2009. Gramatica limbii române vechi (1521-1780). Iasi: Demiurg.Google Scholar
Graham J., Freeman, D.C. & Emlen, J.M. 1993. Antisymmetry, directional asymmetry, and dynamic morphogenesis. Genetica 89: 121–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J. & Schlyter, S. 2004. Cliticisation in the acquisition of French as L1 and L2. In The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 32], J. Paradis & P. Prévost (eds), 333–370. Amsterdam: John Bejamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graur, A. 1929. A propos de l’article postposé. Romania 55: 475–481.Google Scholar
Hill, V. 2013. The direct object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. Romance Linguistics in the Pacific: Variation in Time and Space. Special Issue of the Australian Journal of Linguistics. 33(2): 140–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. 1992. Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4: 112–141.Google Scholar
Irimia, M. 2015. DPs in Adjectival Small Clauses in Romanian: a Diachronic Perspective. In Formal Approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, V. Hill (ed.), 290-328. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isac, D. 1998. Sentence Negation in English and Romanian: a Syntactic and Semantic Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6, C. Fery, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 1970. The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, A.R. 2004. Symmetry breaking and the evolution of development. Science 306: 828–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Y. Otsu (ed.), 25–60. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, P.M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, D.A. Reibel & S.A. Schane (eds), 201–224. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Richter, N. & Mehlhorn, G. 2006. Focus on contrast and emphasis: Evidence from prosody. In The Architecture of Focus, V. Molnar & S. Winkler (eds), 347–373. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–339. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk (ed.). 1999. Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rivero, M.L. 1991. Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8: 319–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1999. Pronominal clitic dependencies. In van Riemsdijk (ed.), 679–708.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. & Onea Gaspar, E. 2008. Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus 20: 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zafiu, R. 2014. Auxiliary encliticization in the 16th century Romanian: Restrictions and regularities. Linguistica Atlantica 33(2): 71–86.Google Scholar