Article published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.235.06sci
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–339. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
(ed.) 1999 Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
①
Rivero, M.L.
1991 Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8: 319–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.
2003 Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D.
1999 Pronominal clitic dependencies. In van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zafiu, R.
2014 Auxiliary encliticization in the 16th century Romanian: Restrictions and regularities. Linguistica Atlantica 33(2): 71–86.Google Scholar