The transformational syntax of Romanian [Reprint 2017 ed.] 9783111349695, 9783110995633

Table of contents :
PREFACE TO THE ROMANIAN EDITION
NOTE ON THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. FORMALISM
CHAPTER II. PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES
CHAPTER III. TRANSFORMATION RULES
REFERENCES

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA NICOLAI

MEMORIAE

VAN W I J K edenda

C.

H.

VAN

curai

SCHOONEVELD

Indiana

S er i e s

DEDICATA

University

P r a c t i c a,

195

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

EMANUEL VASILIU

SANDA GOLOPENTIA-ERETESCU

F A C U L T Y OF R O M A N I A N L A N G U A G E A N D LITERATURE

CENTRE OF PHONETICS AND DIALECTOLOGY

BUCHAREST

BUCHAREST

1972 MOUTON THE HAGUE •

PARIS

Translated from the Romanian by H i n c a

Constantinescu

This is the revised version of S1NTAXA

TRANSFORMATIONALA

A L1MB1I

ROMANE

EDITURA ACADEMIEI REPUBLIC» SOCIALISTE ROMANIA Str. Gutenberg 3 bis, Bucure?ti, 1969 All rights reserved

© by EDITURA ACADEMIEI and MOUTON & CO. N. V. PUBLISHERS, 1972

PRINTED IN ROMANIA

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

PREFACE TO THE ROMANIAN EDITION

The transformational syntax of Eomanian represents one of the few works of transformational orientation existent at the present moment which makes an attempt to encompass a given language in its ensemble. Up to now, most transformational grammars are built up with a view to describing (more or less extended) stretches of concrete languages (the nominalization in English, the negation in English, the coordination, etc.). As a matter of fact, a transformational grammar conceived to cover a language as a whole should rely on a sufficiently large number of detailed grammars devoted to the main compartments of the respective language (the grammar of the noun phrase, of the verb phrase, of the adverbial phrase, of nominalization, etc.). Under such circumstances the grammar of "the whole" would operate the 'fitting together' of these fragmentary grammars and would represent first of all an act of choice and generalization of those solutions (put forward by the slice grammars) that prove to be more adequate to the entire domain represented by the language under consideration, or which are compatible with solutions suggested for other fragments of the same language. It is obvious that under such circumstances, the building up of an integral grammar would be a primarily theoretic operation. The situation the authors had to face was substantially different. There are very few studies on different stretches of Eomanian (Liliana Ionescu 1965, 1967 ; Mihaela Manca§ 1965, 1967 ; Gabriela Pana 1966, Laura Yasiliu 1965,1967). The authors had therefore to build up an almost entirely new grammar. What had to be done first was not the theoretical evaluation of existent solutions and piecing them together, but finding new solutions. And finding new solutions adequate to a greater number of facts (the whole domain of a language) is obviously more difficult than finding solutions adequate to a smaller number of facts (a limited portion of a language). Likewise, confining the study to a language fragment permits the solutions to account for a larger number of details; restricting the domain represents a possibility to refine the description. At the same time its extension (to the entire language) involves an inherent (and deliberate) overlooking of details.

8

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

In spite of the mentioned difficulties (of which we had been permanently aware), we do not consider this grammar to be "premature". On the contrary. If it is true and evident that the existence of slice grammars makes possible the evaluation of partial solutions and their ulterior integration into an ensemble with big possibilities of refining the description, it is equally true that the existence of a first approximation in terms of an ensemble description (unavoidably less refined) constitutes a sort of a reference system for the evaluation of further solutions with an increased explanatory power, or/and a greater descriptive force. Therefore, we conceive the present work as a starting point for future researches in the transformational grammar of Eomanian. To begin the study of a subject matter with a general characterization liable of further progressive refinements is as justified as to begin the study with partial but profound approaches which are to be unified later on in a refined overall characterization. The procedure is a matter of decision and neither of the approaches may unarbitrarily be qualified "better" than the other one. Our work reflects the state attained by transformational theory in 1965, that is with the progress that had been achieved since 1957, but also the known, or unknown, flaws persisting in the '1965 state'. Our work reflects also these flaws as its authors did not set the aim to contribute to the solving of some theoretical problems. In this sense, mention should be made firstly of the fact that in transformational theory the transformational component proper is on a rather low level of formalization. For this reason it is difficult to "reckon" all the transformations possible in the grammar of a concrete language, the generative limits of this component being hard to specify. On the other hand, while working out the present study certain theoretical difficulties arose, as far as we know — not tackled before — and which the authors did not aim to solve. Such is the case of the inversion transformation —, where the outcome of the transformations does not seem to be safe of an unarbitrary structural description. Furthermore, no theoretic statement is made either on the nature of the relationship between grammar and semantics, or on the extent to which semantics intervenes in the formulation of grammatical rules. The selection rules are considered in Chomsky (1965) as belonging to grammar, and in Katz-Postal (1966), as belonging to the semantic component. Weinreich (1966) introduces semantic elements even in the rewriting of some categorial symbols of great generality such as S, N T , etc. W e tried to avoid certain consequences of these theoretic shortcomings. To this end the chapter devoted to the transformational component com-

PREFACE

9

prises almost exclusively obligatory rules ; we have listed — without any claim to completeness, and mainly in order to account for the existence of some constructions possibly more frequent than those generated only through obligatory rules — a series of ellipsis rules in relation to the comparative and the superlative. W e have not dealt in detail with questions raised by the selective restrictions and by subcategorizations since these matters evidently have theoretic implications of a semantic nature. This is also the reason why a series of transformations too closely connected with these aspects have been only briefly mentioned (pronominalization, reflexivization, the repositioning of formatives within various modal constructions, etc.). As the title shows, the study does not encompass the morphophonemic component or the semantic one either. However it contains certain suggestions with respect to the sense in which rules of this nature could be formulated, that might be incorporated into an integral description of the Romanian language. The research was achieved through the collaboration of the two authors at the section devoted tosrtuctural linguistics of the " C e n t r u l de cercetàri fonetice §i dialectale" in Bucharest. The chapter on nominalizations had been worked out in a first form by Ileana Vincenz. As now included in the present work this chapter underwent substantial modifications. The introductory chapter and the one dealing with constituent rules were written by Sanda Golopen^ia-Eretescu ; the chapter devoted to transformation rules was written by Emanuel Yasiliu. Obviously, this division regards the wording exclusively. B o t h the general conception of the work, as well as its concrete accomplishment, are common to the two of them, the collaboration being imposed by the very nature of the model utilised : the transformation rules are being formulated starting from structures arrived at through constituent rules, and the constituent rules are being formulated without loosing sight of the transformations that have to convert the abstract, deep structure into surface structure. The authors acknowledge their sincere gratitude to Professor Al. Rosetti, member of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania and director of "Centrul de cercetâri fonetice §i dialectale" for his steady interest and enthusiastic support all along the carrying out of this research.

NOTE ON THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

The English translation of the Transformational S y n t a x of R o m a n i a n appears at a moment when important results have been achieved both on a theoretical plane and in the transformational syntax of the Romanian language. To integrate them would have meant rewriting — instead of translating — the Syntax. We have therefore confined ourselves to replacing the general introduction to the 1969 edition by the chapter Formalism written by Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu and to local refinements inspired by recent works in the field of the transformational syntax of Romanian among which those devoted to the verb by Gabriela PanaDindelegan deserve special mentioning.

CONTENTS

Preface to the Eomanian edition . . . . Note on the English translation . . . .

7 11

I.

15

FORMALISM

§ § § § § §

[I.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Primitive symbols Auxiliary expressions Strings Rules Metastructures Schemes

PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Scheme CI Rule C2 Scheme C3 Rule C4 Scheme C5 Scheme C6 Scheme C7 Scheme C8 Scheme C9 Scheme CIO Scheme Cll Rule C12 Scheme C13 Rule C14 Scheme C15 Scheme C16 Scheme C17 Scheme C18

. . . .

15 22 29 38 68 75

77

81 82 84 88 89 92 93 97 103 104 105 109 109 123 123 125 127 129

14

§ § § § § III.

Scheme 019 Eule C20 Scheme C21 Scheme C22 The Symbol Flex

130 137 139 142 143

TRANSFORMATION RULES

153

§ § § §

§ § § §

§ § § § §

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Eeferences

Constituent coordination . . Negativization Interrogativization Eelativization § 33a. "Sumpro habeo" transformation § 33b. Attributivization . . . § 33c. Infinitivization, gerundivization Indefinite subject deletion . . Nominalization Passivization Comparativization and superlativization § 37a. Comparativization . . § 37b. Superlativization . . . Definite article deletion . . Deletion of Pos Deletion of md Deletion of PE Transformations ordering . .

156 160 165 168 169 170 171 174 174 179 181 181 185 186 190 191 191 192 195

CHAPTER I

FORMA LISM

The present attempt to extend to the whole grammar the presentation of the phonological formalism in Chomsky-Halle (1968)1 is meant to make explicit to the reader our frame of reference in the elaboration and refining of the transformational syntax of Eomanian. The discussion is organized according to the following plan : — Primitive symbols (§ 1): the features the specifications the categories

0

the operators — Auxiliary expressions (§ 2) : the concatenation notations the variables the abbreviatory notations the specified features - Strings (§ 3) : the units the matrices the sequences the rewiiting rules - Rules (§ 4) : the transformations the contextual features — Metastructures (§ 5) : the rule-features — Schemes (§ 6) § 1. PRIMITIVE SYMBOLS

The grammar makes use of the following classes of primitive symbols : the features, the specifications, the categories, the operators. Each class of primitive symbols is defined by means of a finite inventory of primitive symbols to which zero can be added. The inventory of one class of primitive symbols is called partial inventory of primitive symbols of the grammar. 1

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), pp. 3 9 0 - 3 9 9 .

16

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF

ROMANIAN

The ensemble of all partial inventories used in a grammar represents the total inventory of primitive symbols of the grammar (also called nonterminal vocabulary, auxiliary vocabulary, metalinguistic vocabulary). No overlapping is allowed between partial inventories, that is, every primitive symbol, except zero, has to be assessed to one and only one partial inventory. Bach partial inventory (of primitive symbols) represents a. minimally ordered list. B y " a minimally ordered list" we understand a list in which one or more initial symbols are compulsorily stated. The degree to which the partial inventories are internally ordered can furiction as an evaluation criterion for the grammar. One would expect that a grammar in which each partial inventory of symbols admits a unique initial symbol is to be preferred to (has a greater value than) a grammar in which each partial inventory admits a plurality of initial symbols. Zero cannot be taken as the initial symbol of any partial inventory of primitive symbols. Within the total inventory of the grammar the order relation is established between partial inventories and not between primitive symbols directly. The initial primitive symbols inventory of the grammar is the partial inventory of categories (the categorial inventory). The grammar forbids the immediate concatenating of any other primitive symbols except the category symbols and zero. Implicitly, the category symbols and 0 represent independent primitive symbols of the grammar, whereas the feature, the specification and the operator symbols represent non-independent symbols of the grammar. The features : F x ... F * . Features are postulated PHONOLOGIC (such as Segment, Consonantal, Vocalic, Grave, etc.), SEMANTIC (such as Lexical, Animate, Abstract, Human, Object, Quality, Place, Time, etc.), SYNTACTIC ([Det ___"], [ _ G N ] , etc.) or DIACRITIC (Regular, Foreign 3 , etc.). The initial phonologic feature (F f t ) is in Chomsky-Halle (1968) the feature Segment. The initial semantic feature (F®) would be, in the semantic component conceived by us, the feature Lexical. No initial syntactic feature and no initial diacritic feature have been postulated. 2

F =

3

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 388.

feature.

I. FORMALISM

17

The features Animate, Abstract, Proper, Human, Object, Quality, Place, Time, etc. do not have a univoque status in transformational theory, ifoam Chomsky (1965) calls them syntactic features 4 ; in later studies homonymous feature names are alternatively referred to as semantic features, syntactic-semantic features, etc. The explanation of the ambiguous status of such features as those mentioned above lies in the current practice of defining. One defines as syntactic any symbol (implicitly any feature) that appears in the rules of the syntactic component; as semantic any symbol that appears in the rules of the semantic component; as phonologic any symbol that appears in the rules of the phonologic component. Chomsky writes : "Notice, incidentally, that the purely semantic lexical features constitute a well-defined set, in a given grammar. A feature belongs to this set just in case it is not referred to by any rule of the phonological or syntactic component. This may be important for the theory of semantic interpretation" 5 . For cases of double affiliation, Katz-Fodor (1963) recommend : " . . . where it appears that a marker is common to both grammar and semantics, what is in fact the case is that there are two distinct markers having the same or similar names" 6 . But one should bear in mind that the partition of the grammar into components is done by the researcher himself, that it is not afore-given but hypothetical and that, therefore, speaking about the affiliation to an ad-hoc delimited component makes the definition enter a vicious circle. Moreover, it is not clear from a formal point of view, what "occurring in" the rules of a component X means, since a feature F a may appear not only as a constituent element of a rule, but also as a constituent element of a condition for the application of a rule. Can we say that the inclusion in the conditions of the rules of a component X is an identifying criterion of the same kind as the inclusion in the very rules of that component ? We consider that it is possible to introduce the concept of syntactic feature only if relying on the syntactic concept of context. A feature is syntactic whenever and exclusively if contextual (if its formulation requires the specification of a context). A feature in the specification of which one does not resort to marking the context is always and exclusively semantic. 4 Cf. Chomsky (1965), p. 85 and following. See also Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 173 : "This will be true, then, even of the syntactic and semantic features {'animate', 'proper' . . .)" (italics ours). 5 6

Cf. Chomsky (1965), p. 88. Cf. Katz-Fodor (1963), p. 518.

2 - o . 153

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

18

There are cases in which a noncontextual semantic feature constantly and automatically corresponds to a contextual syntactic feature. For instance, the semantic feature Proper specified in the negative/positive respectively corresponds constantly and automatically to the syntactic feature [Det ]7 specified in the positive/negative respectively. The difference between the syntactic contextual features ("received" from the tree) and the noncontextual inherent features has been underlined by Chomsky (1965) : " I n particular, it seems . . . that the features added to a formative by agreement transformations are not part of the formative in the same sense as those which are inherent to it or as those which it assumes as it enters a Phrase-marker" 8. Diacritic features such as Regular, Native, Foreign, Romance, Germanic, etc., were meant in Chomsky-Halle (1968) to indicate how elements in which they are contained behave as to the phonological rules. In our opinion, the negative specification of a feature like Regular is equally fit to signal phonologic, semantic or syntactic irregularity. We therefore think that a convention that would postulate as + PHONOLOGIC +

SEMANTIC

+

SYNTACTIC

such features as those mentioned above would simplify the grammar. The feature inventory would thus consist of +

PHONOLOGIC

-

PHONOLOGIC

-

SEMANTIC

+

SEMANTIC

-

SYNTACTIC

-

SYNTACTIC

-

PHONOLOGIC

+

PHONOLOGIC

-

SEMANTIC

+

SYNTACTIC

and

+

SEMANTIC

+

SYNTACTIC

features. The diacritic features would mimetically define the belonging to a 'behaviour series' (i.e. to a group of elements with respect to which speakers behave in a similar way, such as words of foreign origin, and within this category words borrowed from French, Russian, German, or words from specialized technical vocabularies, and so on) with respect to the rules of that component to which the dominant symbol of the expansion belongs. Where Det = Determinant, and " " marks the context with respect to Det. Cf. Chomsky (1965), pp. 1 7 9 - 1 8 0 .

I. FORMALISM

19

The specifications : + , — ( = nonplus), 1, 2 . . . z ; u, m. The binary specifications + , — have a distinctive, classifying value. The scalar specifications (numerical coefficients) 1, 2 . . . z are descriptive and practically unlimited. Carrying on the tradition of the Linguistic Circle of Prague and developing L . Hjelmslev's or E . Benveniste's theories 9 , Greenberg (1966), Ohomsky-Halle (1968) and Lakoff (1965) contain discussions of a special interest concerning the necessity and usefulness of replacing the binary specifications + , — by the specifications u ( = unmarked) or m ( = marked) according to the "natural" or "unnatural" character of the occurrence of the respective feature. For instance : it is "natural" for a feature like —if amber to correspond to —Plural (lapte " m i l k " , unt " b u t t e r " , miere " h o n e y " , etc.); it is "unnatural" for the feature — Number to correspond to + P l u r a l (lapti " m i l t " , tarite " b r a n " , cttti " t o w " , etc.) 10 . I t is "natural" for + P r o p e r , to correspond to — [Det ] (Ion " J o h n " , Nicolae "Nicholas", Zoe), and "unnatural" for + P r o p e r to correspond to + [ D e t ] (Mihul, Vladoaia, Badul)11. The specification u can easily be turned into an evaluation criterion : the greater the number of u specifications, the lower the grammar's value. The initial specifications a r e : u, m. The final specifications are 1, 2, . . . z. Implicitly, + and — stand for transient specifications. The initial specifications u, m are converted into medial specifications - f , — ; the medial specifications — are converted into the final specifications 1 . . . . . . z in conformity with constraints of the t y p e : " — " is rewritten as " 1 . . . n " , " + " is rewritten as " n + 1 . . . z " . The categories : C t . . . C t . The grammar includes G R A M M A T I C A L C A T E G O R I E S such as S ( = Sentence), N P ( = N o u n Phrase), V P ( = V e r b Phrase), A v P ( = Adverbial Phrase), N e g ( = Negation), Int ( = I n t e r 9

E . Benveniste discusses about the unmarked character of the 3rd person personal pronoun

of the present indicative, of the positive (degree. Cf. L a k o f f (1965), p. 16; " . . . syntactic features are represented in the lexicon not in

10

terms of pluses and minuses, but only in terms of whether or not they are normal (italics ours). W e will then have rules t o convert the binary features, normal and non-normal, into pluses and minuses. In order to capture the notion that a lexicon is more regular if it has fewer

non-

normal features, our evaluation measures will count only non-normal feature values". Evaluating through " — " and not through " + " , Chomsky-Halle (1968) " a r e utilizing a partial equivalent of the concept of markedness (minus is marked, plus is u n m a r k e d ) " — cf. L a k o f f (1965), I I —3. 11

Starting f r o m a grammar in which the article is under domination D e t . In the examples

above the proper names Mihu, Radu-l)

or -a

(Vladoaie-a).

Vladoaie,

Radu are followed by the enclitic article -I ( M i h u - l ,

20

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

rogation), etc., arid L E X I C A L CATEGORIES such as : N (=Noun), V ( = V e r b ) , A j (=Adjective), A v (=Adverb), Conj ( = Conjunction), etc. S is the initial symbol of the categorial inventory 12. The opposition grammatical categories/lexical categories originated in the opposition phrase structure rules / lexical rules. In Chomsky (1957) the lexical categories were being rewritten at the end of the derivation through lexical rules of the type : X ^ Z ^ - " w o l f " , «rs-"bear" ; Y cint- "sing", vin- "come", etc.). But the grammatical device thus constructed was 'too powerful", it was generating constituents in which the undifferentiated use of words was completely divergent from the intuition of the linguist speaker. Chomsky (1965) has limited the rewriting of lexical categories by introducing the claim of rewriting them as C8 (=Complex Symbols). Each Complex Symbol is then expanded through contextual and noncontextual features. Consequently in Chomsky (1965) CS function as a relative initial symbol, for syntactic and semantic subcategorization. The categories K", V, A j , Av, Numeral, Conj, Personal possess the feature + Lexical; all other categories are defined by —Lexical. Only the symbols containing the feature + Lexical are amenable to undergo a semantic (phonological) interpretation. The grammatical categories marked —Lexical cannot undergo directly a semantic (phonological) interpretation but condition it zonally. In this way, the grammar would account not only for the phonetic but also for the semantic suprasegmenta-1 interpretation of such categories as I N T , NEG, S, N P , Y P , etc. To render in these terms U. Weinreich's semantic theory would mean introducing after each syntactic rule, a rule of the type :

(q)

fx, XQ

-f- Lexical

x„ where X x , X 2 . . . X n = symbols contained in the expansion of the preceding rule (q—1). The syntactic component would become "a two-time component" (syntactic-semantic), alternatively generating and interpreting sequences. 12

For the time being the g r a m m a r does not take as absolute initial symbols

linguistic entities as Text, Fragment, P a r a g r a p h , etc.

such

superior

I.

FORMALISM

21

The grammatical categories would all be converted into syntactic and semantic features and, automatically, would have to be in the LEXICON. The LEXICON would in this case contain a series of elements with no phonological representation in the generated language. Is the distinction categories/features based on the content of the respective symbols or is it motivated by technical reasons ? In the first alternative it would rely on the opposition between the formative function and the characterization function achieved by the lespective symbols with respect to the signs of a language (the words of that language)13. In the second one, it would focus exclusively on the more or less economical character of considering one and the same linguistic phenomenon either as feature (specifiable in terms of the already mentioned specifications) or as category (non-specifiable). A third possibility could also be conceived, not tackled with here, of identifying features and categories. Cf., in Chomsky-Halle (1968) : "In fact, we may think of the lexical entry of a formative as nothing other than a list of the categories to which it belongs. The categories are sometimes called features"14 (italics ours). On another level this problem means to delimit the inventory of category primitives from the inventory of feature primitives. It is obvious that at this time such inventories are in the process of being constructed, that a delimitation implies a prior set up of the total inventory of primitive symbols and that even the mere taking over or exclusion of a symbol introduced (eliminated) by other researchers must make the object of a justification that should take into account the metaderivational history of that symbol. The theories developed by U. Weinreich, George Lakoff, W. Chafe suggest, among other facts, that a complete separation of the inventory of categories from the inventory of features is unattainable. The separation of category (feature) inventories raises the problem of their limited (unlimited) character. If we admit the content distinction between categories and features, we admit the possibility of setting up two distinct inventories (precisely 13

F o r the intrinsic content of t h e features in phonology see Chomsky-Halle (1968), pp.

400-435. 14

Gf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 7, and Cf. Weinreich (1966), p. 4 4 3 : " . . . let us establish

that each symbol which is mapped into • is not a mere

category symbol (such as Noun, or

Verb), but a complex symbol consisting of a category symbol and a semantic feature. The of Hi is feature

is identical

with the name

of the category,

but the notation

is not entirely

"name" redundant,

since the categorial portion of the complex symbol alludes to its segmental distinctness, whereas the feature portion alludes t o its meaning" (italics ours).

22

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

outlineable) in which no element of the first inventory appears in the second inventory, and no element of the second inventory appears in the first inventory. Whereas if we admit the free option for the category/feature character of one and the same phenomenon X , the compulsory limited character of both inventories does no longer seem so evident. Practically both of them become unlimited (and undelimitable), any element being at any moment likely of inclusion either in the first or in the second inventory out of purely local momentary reasons. 0 . We consider the symbol Zero defined by what has been said on page 16. The specification zero is marked 0 . The category zero is marked 0 . No special notation is provided for the feature zero or for the operator zero. The operators: —>(= rewrite an unknown element through) and =) ( = transform any known element that satisfies the specified structural description into) will be discussed in § 4. § 2. AUXILIARY EXPRESSIONS Of the multitude of auxiliary expressions we dwell on the concatenation notations, on variables and on abbreviatory notations. The concatenation notations. Nonconcatenation (simultaneousness) is marked graphically as follows : — by eliminating the blank space inbetween simultaneous elements : +Human, —Object, OAnimal, in=eit-, "incite", # o m # " m a n " ; + , —, 0 cannot be "separated" from Human, Object, Animal (except in metatheory) " = " is "simultaneous" with n and with c, the former " # " is simultaneous with o and the latter is simultaneous with m and so on. — by including simultaneous elements within the same square brackets : '—Process -[Object —Animate —Abstract

'—Vocalic +Oonsonantal

, and so on. For two simultaneous specifications the following convention is adopted : + - = - , + + = + , - + = - , = +.

I. F O R M A L I S M

23

The concatenation (without specifying the order of the concatenated elements) is marked by a blank space between the concatenated symbols. I n Saumjan's notation (in Chomsky, and Eoss as well) a rewriting rule frequently looks like : S-*NP

VP

where N P and Y P are concatenated with no indication of their reciprocal order. The rules and the components of the grammar as well are separated by a blank space. Their reciprocal ordering requires the introduction of a series of explicit conventions. The concatenation with indication of the reciprocal orientation of the symbols is marked b y " , cf. : S -> N P ~ V P where means N P i s "oriented to the l e f t " and V P is "oriented to the r i g h t " within the syntactic tree constructed on the basis of t h e respective rule. The concatenation with indication of the linear order relation is marked by " - " : N — V — Det — N and is frequently met in the structural description zone of the transformation rules. The concatenation with indication of the nature of the relations among the concatenated elements is marked by — > , < \ , (notations proposed b y Weinreich (1966 a)). The variables. I n the above discussion, categories and features were marked by the variables Cj . . . Ct and F\ . . . F„ respectively. I n the structural description of the transformations the variables t h a t substitute for categories are often marked by X, Y. According to is crucial for the about syntactic definitely large 15

Eoss (1967a) : "This notion (i.e. = syntactic variables) theory of syntax, for without it the most striking fact processes — the fact t h a t they must operate over indomains — cannot be captured" 1 5 .

Cf. Ross (1967a), p. 9.

24

THE

TRANSFORMATIONAL,

SYNTAX

OF

ROMANIAN

Ross' conclusion is that the concept of variable ought to be limited by special constraints 16. In his opinion the syntactic islands theory contains such a constraint. Every utterance (tree) contains several syntactic islands. The variable accepts or not the limits imposed by the syntactic islands according to the rule to which it belongs. Eoss (1967a) even wondered whether the syntactic islands do not represent psycholinguistic entities17. Postal (1968) operates the distinction among Abbreviatory Variables, Essential Variables and End Variables. Abbreviatory Variables and End Variables have a generalizing function, Essential Variables are indispensable to the formulation of certain types of rules : "Abbreviatory and End Variables are . . . added to linguistic theory on grounds having to do with the evaluation of the complexity of grammars. Essential Variables are introduced to permit the statement of rules otherwise inexpressible" 1S. In contradistinction to End Variables, Abbreviatory Variables "do not stand for just any sequence whatever. Eather, they may be used only to represent clause internal subsequences. In other words, they do not cover higher clause bound area" 19. The distinctive sign of Abbreviatory Variables are square brackets indexed to signal the nature of the simultaneously abbreviated utterance from the respective variable : [ . . . Va C . . . . ] : 11 . . . . the Abbreviatory Variables . . . are enclosed in brackets labelled as representing an S constituent. That is quite crucial and every usage of such variables will have to be so enclosed . . . no occurrences of such variables are possible without the relevant subscripted brackets. This is necessary in order to indicate which clause the variable is used to abbreviate part of" 20. The rules which include an Essential Variable are called Variable Ilules ; all the other variables enter the structure of Constant Eules. The specification ' - f o r —' ( ± ) is frequently abbreviated through the variable a. This permits a simplification in the sense that two successive rules of the type : (m) + F —F (n) — F -> + F may be abbreviated into a single rule : (q) F 16

— a F (the so-calledpolar-

Such a constraint was 'the A-over-A principle' introduced by Chomsky. I>"or comments,

see Ross (1967a), p. 493. 17

Cf. Ross (1967a), p. 494.

18

Cf. Postal (1968), p. 118.

19

Cf. Postal (1968), p. 114.

20

Cf. Postal

(1968),

p.

115.

I.

FORMALISM

25

ity rule). It is true that in statement (q) the information about the order relationship of (m) and (n) is lost. The statement (q) abbreviates the simultaneous rules (m) and (n). (m) 4-P -> — F ; (n) —F +F The operators cannot be substituted by variables. The variable e marks the identity of two symbols. The introduction of this variable turned out to be absolutely necessary in the case of deletion transformations. As a deletion should always be recoverable, the deleted element ought to be characterized through e as to an element that is maintained in the respective transformation. The identity variable is sometimes replaced by the sign ' = ' placed inbetween the two symbols, through their similar indexing and so on. We would prefer not to resort to similar indexing considering that the index is a distinctive property of the concrete formatives (words, morphemes) contained in the LEXICON and not of the symbols (in our opinion a symbol of the grammar should have an infinite multitude of indexes). We identify the index with the distinguisher postulated by Katz-Fodor (1963). Therefore, we shall not say : every semantic representation of a word contains an idiosyncratic semantic feature (a feature which does not appear in any other semantic representation), but: every word in the LEXICON" is indexed (has an index). The index is not part of the semantic representation. The same as the concrete word (morpheme), the index pertains to the generated language, not to the grammatical metalanguage. Devoting a thorough research to the concept of linguistic identity, Lakoff (1966a) comes to the conclusion that it implies at least the following four identities : — identity of lexical items, — identity of reference, — identity of derived structure, — identity of deep structure 2 1 . He thus refines the concept of identity which Chomsky (1965) had defined at the level of non-distinctness and, possibly, at that of co-referentiality 22 . Cf. Lakoff (1966a), p. 1 - 1 0 2 . Cf. Chomsky (1965), p. 182 : "Summarizing we seem lo be led to the conclusion that nondistinctness rather than strict identity is what is involved in deletion, and that only those features of a formative that are inherent either to its lexical entry or to the position in the sentence where it is inserted are to be considered in determining nondistinctness". See also Chomsky (1965), pp. 145—147 and Ross (1967d), pp. 113 — 114 : " . . . a constituent which is to be pronominalized by virtue of its identity to some other constituent must be identical in deep structure to that constituent" (italics ours). 21

22

26

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

The abbreviatory notations. Abbreviatory notations put together adjacent similar rules in schemes, according to certain conventions at the level of the whole grammai. In contradistinction to abbreviatory variables such as a, in the case of abbreviatory notations both the ordering of the different rules abbreviated through the same notation and the reciprocal ordering of the abbreviatory notations contained in the same scheme are rigorously specified. { } mark the compulsory concatenation of the symbols that precede (follow) them with each row comprised inbetween in as many different expansions. In a scheme like : (B X

A n

Y

the following three successive rules are contained : X -»A

B

Y

X -> A

0

Y

X

A D

Y.

The order of the abbreviated rules coincides with the vertical order of the symbols comprised between { }. The ordering is conjunctive in the sense that applying the first rule abbreviated through { } does not forbid the application of the other two rules (they may succeed within the same derivation). ( ) mark the optional character of the symbol(s) they encompass. In a scheme like : X

A (B) C

the following two rules are, therefore, contained : X -> A B C X ^ AC. As one may notice, in rendering the rules we have indicated the fact that, by convention, the rule including the element given within parentheses precedes the rule that does not contain it.

I. F O R M A L I S M

27

The inverted expansion order — if the option takes into account unlimited recurrent occurrences of the optional symbol — is signalled through ( )* : Z{X)*W is equivalent to Z W,Z X X W, ZXX XW ..., etc. in this order. For establishing the order of two optional abbreviations comprised -within the same scheme the following notation is used : ^.n ( = the maximal number of occurrences of X). m ( = the minimal number of occurrences of X). An expansion like (0)(X) may thus be rewritten as Cj (X). By adopting the convention of the posterior expanding of the numerical indices, the expansion Cj (X) will no longer correspond to a scheme with an ambiguous ordering : (a) C X, or (b) 0 X, or (c) C X, or (d) C X, etc. 0 X c

0 c X

X 0 0

c X 0

but will resume exclusively alternative (d). In order to mark discontinuous dependencies, ( ) are replaced by angles : the expansion comprising all symbols contained within < > precedes the expansion in which none of these symbols is found. In order to express and order in a unique scheme several series of discontinuous dependencies, one has to introduce the convention of indexing the angles: < ! > * ; the angles identically indexed are simultaneously expanded. All orderings marked through ( ) or < > have a disjunctive character. The application of the rule including the optional symbol forbids the successive application within the same derivation of the rule that does not include the optional symbol. For the abbreviatory notations already mentioned, Chomsky-Halle (1968) give the following order : (I)

{ }

(II)

(

(in)

< >, x:.

)

In a scheme containing all the listed notations the expanding begins at the level of {}, continues at the level ( ) and ends at the level X^. The order relationship between < > and X„L has not been specified yet.

28

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L

S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

As it comes out from what we have said above, the abbreviatory notations constitute not only precious elements in the operation of evaluating the simplicity of the grammar but also reliable indicators concerning the partial or total belonging of a scheme to the same derivation. In selecting abbreviatory notations the maximization of disjunctions is recommendable since it leads to minimizing the length of the derivations, which Ohomsky-Halle (1968) call "the amount of 'computation' " 23. If we have sequences X Y , XZ, X, the abbreviation X ^j^fjj will therefore IY ] be preferred to its synonymous X j ^ j because in the former the expansion X is in a disjunctive relationship both to X Y and to XZ, whereas in the latter X is in a conjunctive relationship of order to X Z exclusively. " — " abbreviates "the context viewed with respect to the symbol dealt with". The context is defined as simultaneous : + AnimateJ —> [ ± Human] and in this case one resorts to [ ], or as nonsimultaneous : V

*

V

/

transitive I common

I Det I

U 1P --

When the context conditions the application of a rule, the rule is separated from the context by "/". The exclusive use of "/" has an abbreviatory value, X Y/C meaning equally : X

Y/_C

and X

Y/C

The two rules are not ordered. The abbreviation through "/" never refers to a simultaneous context. That is why : X Y I [ccF] will correspond to (I), (II), but never to * ( I I I ) or * ( I Y ) : (II) X "

Y/fa F ™

(OT t h e

(°r the 23

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 63.

reV6rSe)

reVerS6)

I. F O R M A L I S M

29

The explicit ordering of the contextual conditions of applying a rule is rendered by successive slashes and dashes : X

Y/Z _ R / P _

Q

which abbreviate, in this order, the rules : Z X E ^ Z Y R/P

Q and

P Z X R Q-^PZ YR Q The application of the first rule implies : (a) detecting within the sentence all the contexts P Q, and (b), applying the rule Z X R - > Z Y R t o a l l these contexts. I t is obvious that it is easier to detect the context P Q than the context P Z R Q and that the slash and dash notation enhances the value of the grammar. § 3. STRINGS The concatenation of primitive symbols makes up strings. The strings may be vertical (simultaneous : we have not met instances of purely vertical strings), horizontal (the specified features, the categorial sequences), and mixed, vertical-horizontal (the units, the matrices). The string that does not contain at least one independent primitive symbol is a dependent string. Among the mentioned strings, the specified features, the units and the matrices are dependent strings. The categorial sequence is the sole independent string of the grammar. The specified features : aX, where a is a specification and X is a feature. The central innovation of Chomsky-Halle (1968) lies in the dichotomy phonological features — phonetic features. Phonological features are features specifiable through the coefficients + , —, 0. Phonetic features (phonetic scales) are features specifiable through coefficients of the type 1, 2, 3, . . . z, which indicate the position of the element characterized onto a physical scale with two limits "designated by antonymous adjectives " 24 . They possess a determinable acoustic and physiological correspondent and represent universals, for establishing the inventory of which a central difficulty is "whether a certain phonetic contrast is to be represented by means of a new phonetic feature or by 24

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 298.

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

30

increasing the number of coefficients that some already extant phonetic feature may be allowed to assume" 25. T o the extent to which they represent universals, phonetic features have an absolute character, to the extent to which they are specifiable through numerical coefficients they have a relative character. T o the possible solution : abstract phonological features X , Y , Z/ distinct phonetic features and rules to indicate the correspondence between the two inventories Chomsky-Halle (1968) prefer the homonymy phonological feature/phonetic feature or, more exactly, the opposition between the phonological function and the phonetic function of a unique inventory of features 26 , the phonological rules having to convert every " ¿ " into one of the numerical coefficients 1, . . . n and every " — " into one of the numerical coefficients n + 1, . . . z. On the basis of examining 101 natural languages Chomsky-Halle (1968) arrived at 36 features "that together represent the phonetic capabilities of m a n " 27. Besides the detected features (simultaneously phonetic and phonological), Chomsky-Halle (1968) postulate a series of theoretic phonological features which are to be checked as to whether they have or not a univoque phonetic correspondent 28 . These are ¿ Segment, ¿ Formative Boundary, ¿ W o r d Boundary. 'Phonologizing', we would consider that, in its turn, the semantic component operates in terms of certain distinctive, classificatory, binary features, specified by + , —, which we would call lexical features, and in terms of descriptive scalar features with an unlimited range of values, specifiable by the numerical coefficients 1, 2, . . . z, which we would call semantic features. ¿ A n i m a t e , ¿ Abstract, ¿ P r o p e r , ¿ H u m a n , ¿ O b j e c t , ¿ Q u a l i t y , ¿ S p a c e , ¿ T i m e , etc. are Lexical Features. Features like Back (of a chair), Furniture, Feet, Specific Shepherd (within the semantic field of domestic animals), etc. used by B. Pottier, Georges Mounin 29, etc. are descriptive semantic features that may be located in z points of a semantic scale. Chomsky (1965) associates ¿ specifications to the lexical categories N , Y : ¿1ST, + V , treating them as syntactic-semantic initial features of the Complex Symbols N , V . 25

Cf. Chomsky-Halle

29

See, in this respect, Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 75.

(1968), p.

297.

27

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 299.

28

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 364 : " . . . word boundaries may optionally be actualized

as pauses". 29

Cf. Pottier (1964), Mounin (1965a), Mounin (1965b).

I. F O R M A L I S M

31

The units : (Ji\ . . . . (3Fm where p = a or any other specification and . . . F m is a substring of the string . . . Fa. A simultaneous set of phonological features builds a phonological unit, a simultaneous set of phonetic features builds a phonetic unit. The possible option between segmental units and nonsegmental units (limits, pauses) is introduced in the case of phonological units. As an instance of a segmental phonological unit we may take the English 5 defined in Chomsky-Halle (1968)30 through the simultaneous occurrence of the following features : -

+Vocalic — Consonantal -High +Back +Lc»w —Anterior —Coronal +Round Tense _

The turning over of ± specifications into numerical specifications would convert the unit represented above into a segmental phonetic unit. Examples of nonsegmental phonological units are : — Segment -[-Formative Boundary —Word Boundary (corresponding to formative pause and marked -J—), ~ — Segment —Formative Boundary -f-Word Boundary (corresponding to word pause and marked ^¡t), and — Segment —Formative Boundary —Word Boundary (corresponding to an inner stem pause and marked = ) . 30

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p.

176.

THE

32

TRANSFORMATIONAL

SYNTAX

OF

ROMANIAN

In the LEXICON every matrix should be preceded and followed by a formative pause :

An abbreviatory convention incoporated in the grammatical theory and valid for both the LEXICON and the phonological rules allows the notation not to mark each time the formative pauses on condition that they be considered implicit and supplemented by redundancy rules. The Ohomsky-Halle (1968) phonological component relies implicitly on the hypothesis that no phonological process that may be stated in terms of rules is blocked by the presence of

|— : "The most highly valued

('simplest') grammar . . . is one in which phonological processes that apply when there is no formative boundary apply also when this unit is present, though not conversely, and in which processes stated in terms of other boundaries apply where and only where these appear in strings" 31. = raises the problem of its semantic correspondent. If, for example, we assume that incit- "incite", excit- "excite" will be rendered as in=cit-, ex=cit-, does it follow that the respective stem is characterized semantically by a gap or, more exactly, that it will constitute a configuration in which semantic features fall into two zones corresponding to in and cit ? As an example of lexical unit let us take the representation of the Romanian animal "animal" : —Process +Object -fAnimate —Human ±Male 31

Cf.

Chomsky-Halle

(1968),

p.

67.

-

3.'i

I. FORMALISM

As an example of semantic unit, the Bomanlan lup "wolf" would look like: —Process -|-Object -[-Animate —Human +Male 1 . . . 7, Mammal 1 ... z Wild Colour 1 ... z

etc. where 1 ... z Mammal would ensure the univoque location on the scale of mammals, 1 ... z Wild would ensure the univoque location on the scale of ferociousness, 1 ... z Colour would ensure the univoque location on the scale of colours, and so on. The matrices : X j . . . Xj, where X, is a unit. A sequence of phonological (phonetic) units is given a matricial phonological (phonetic) representation in which columns separate units and rows separate phonological (phonetic) features specifiable within each unit. We illustrate by reproducing the matrix proposed by ChomskyHalle (1968) for the English stun 32 Segment

Vocalic

-

-

Nasal

-

-

I.ow

-

-

High

-

-

Back

-

-

Round

-

-

+ + + + +

+ +

Coronal Continuant Delayed Release Strident

3 -

Cf. Chomsky-Halle ( 1 9 6 8 ) , p. 4 1 5 .

c . 163

+

+

Anterior

32

+

Consonantal

+

-

+ -

+ +

+

-

-

-

+ + + -

+ +

+ -

+ + -

34

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

which, if respecting some notational conventions meant to do away with the redundancy in the LEXICON representation and if indicating through m the marked specfifications, would turn into 3 3 : Segment

m

m

m

m

Consonantal Vocalic

m m

Nasal Low High

+

Back Round Anterior Coronal

+

Continuant Delayed Release Strident

Chomsky-Halle underline the fact that more often than not the matrices contain elements "of a highly mixed sort" 34 in which both the units and the features may be phonological as well as phonetic. According to the mentioned authors, the matrix representation should not be conceived as "a direct record of the speech signal" 35, but rather as "a representation of what the speaker of a language takes to be the phonetic properties of an utterance, given his hypothesis as to its surface structure and his knowledge of the rules of the phonological component" 36, "the speaker-hearer's interpretation rather than directly observable properties of the signal" 37. Whence the discrepancy between the discrete character of the transcription and the continuous character of the signal (the word), between the selective character of the transcription and the complex character of the signal, etc. The same "highly-specific", and therefore "highly improbable" hypotheses with respect to the deep structure will be operated by the hearer at the moment of understanding the utterance. 33 34 35 36 37

Ibidem. Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 66. Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 294. Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 294. Ibidem.

I. FORMALISM

35

The distinction between the classifying function and the phonetic function of the features permits of abandoning the biunivoque correspondence between t h e phonological representation and the phonetic one. The phonological representation is abstract in the sense t h a t it does not represent a sub-matrix of the phonetic representation and is not continued by this one through linearity and invariance conditioning : phonological rules add (delete) segments, modify the phonological features in the gradual process of converting the phonological representation into a phonetic one. Are lexical matrices useful or not ? Are semantic matrices useful or not ? If we take the meaning of a word as representable only as a sentence 38 , and the L E X I C O N to constitute, from the semantic point of view, a set of sentences of the respective language (such as Weinreich, Bendix and Fillmore have admitted), it would follow t h a t the semantic representation of each word does not constitute a unit b u t a matrix. I n this case, semantic units would be represented by constant ordered groups of lexical (semantic) features, corresponding to the logical predicates of the definition sentences. This would, however, raise the problem of order criteria for feature groups within the matrix. The opposition unit/matrix could formally account for Weinreich's distinction between cluster 39 and configuration 4 0 . The (a, b) cluster, where a, b = lexical (semantic) features, is a unit, the nature of which is not affected by changing the order of the features : (a, b) = (b, a). The configuration (a -» b) represents a matrix in which the order of features cannot be altered : (a -> b) =j= (b -> a). Consequently, the configuration (a -> b) will be rendered through the matrix :

38

Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 446 : " . . . every relation that may hold between components of a sentence also occurs among the components of a meaning of a dictionary entry. This is as much as to say that the semantic part of a dictionary entry is a sentence — more specifically, a deep-structure sentence, i.e. a Generalized Phrase-Marker", and, further on, p. 446 : "The sentencehood of dictionary definitions raises an important question : which ones among the infinite number of sentences of a language are dictionary entries?", or, p. 447 : "The problem of the lexicographer is to isolate, from among the infinite set of sentences of a language, the subset which consists of the definitions". 39 In the Weinreichian sense of unordered set of features. Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 418 and following. 40 In the Weinreichian sense of ordered set of features. Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 419 and following.

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

36

(the possibility of units composed of a single feature exists), and not through :

When two or more cluster units form a configuration : (a, b -> c, d) = = (b, a

d, c) = (a, b

d, c) = (b, a - y c, d), the semantic matrix

will

resemble the phonological matrix :

a

c

b

d

b

d

a

c

a

< i

b

c

a

i

1)

c

1 |

(1

but not :

j

etc.

Between the phonological (phonetic) matrix and the lexical (semantic) matrix of the same formative, the Chomsky-Halle model (1968) establishes a continuity which seems to us full of insight by the convention according to which all lexical (semantic) features of the formative are propagated within each segment of its phonological (phonetic) matrix

41.

Therefore,

in the phonological matrix of the Romanian formative cas(a) "house",

41

Cf. C h o m s k y - H a l l e (1968), p. 174 : " . . . each lexical category of a f o r m a t i v e automatically

becomes a distinctive feature of each of its segments. This will be true, then, even of the syntactic and semantic features ( " a n i m a t e " , " p r o p e r " , particular semantic properties, etc.) which ordinarily have no phonetic e f f e c t s " .

I. FORMALISM

37

each segmental unit will be supplemented with features of -f Object, —Process, —Animate, and so on.

c

a

the type

s

!

|

^

+ Object — Process — Animate

+ Object — Process — Animate

+ Object — Process — Animate

In this way the grammar may account for the phenomena of latent phonetic symbolism. For instance, all sounds contained in words characterized in the LEXICON through the semantic feature Of-Reduced-Dimensions (in fact, we imagine the formulation of such a feature only in terms of numerical specifications of a Dimension feature) automatically contain the feature Of-Reduced-Dimensions (nDimension) and have a chance to come to independently represent in the speakers' mind the stnallness. The sequences : . . . C„. A sequence represents a concatenation of categories. As such, it does not imply the linear ordering of its symbols. The linear ordering characterizes only the concrete utterances. The symbols may only be oriented towards a left / right branching. The concept of "skeleton rule" discussed by Ross (1967 a) 4 2 refers precisely to the rules containing such non-ordered sequences of categories. A language characterized through free word-order would be a language in which the rules formulated in sequential terms would not be supplemented by order transformations.

4

- Cf. Ross (1967a), p. 79 : " . . . it is necessary to factor out that part of the various scram-

bling rules which is language independent and to state this skeleton once in the linguistic theory. Then the notion 'free word-order language' can be equated with the notion 'language having a grammar making use of the scrambling skeleton' ".

38

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF

ROMANIAN

§ 4. RULES The rules are concatenations which include operators (thus, opposing to strings — concatenations which do not include operators) 43 . Discussing the requirements which a grammatical rule should meet, Chomsky and Halle (1968) n o t e 4 4 : "The rules of the grammar operate in a mechanical fashion; one may think of them as instructions that might be given to a mindless robot, incapable of exercising any judgement or imagination in their application. Any ambiguity or inexplicitness in the statement of rules must in principle be eliminated, since the receiver of the instructions is assumed to be incapable of using intelligence to fill in gaps or to correct errors. To the extent that the rules do not meet this standard of explicitness and precision, they fail to express the linguistic facts" and further on, in a note they remark: " I t is a curious fact that this condition of preciseness of formulation for the rules of a generative grammar has led many linguists to conclude that the motivation for such grammars must be machine translation or some other use of computers, as if there could be no motive in clarity and completeness other than this" 45 (italics ours). As to whether the operator is -> respectively =>, the rules are called rewriting rules, respectively transformation rules. In Chomsky (1957) the opposition rewriting rules/transformations was clearly marked. Marking as X the element directly affected by the respective process (distinct from "the element on the left of the operator" which may include also the context of the process), and as Y the element directly resulting from the respective process (distinct from "the element on the right of the operator" which may include also the context of the process) in Chomsky (1957) the selection of the operator -> imposed the following conditions : (1)

(2) Y =f= 0 ,

43

F o r a more comprehensive definition see Chomsky-Miller (1958), p. 91 : " . . . each rule

specifies the state of the system in which it can be applied, the symbol which is generated and the state of the system after the rule is applied". The generation proceeds " i n a fixed order, from past to future (or left t o right)", idem, p. 92. 44 45

Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 60. Ibidem.

I. F O R M A L I S M

39

(3) X is one and only one category, (4) Y is one and only one sequence, or a category, or a concrete word of the language, (5) X ^ Y which, in the context in which X is compulsorily one and only one category, and Y is compulsorily one (and only one) sequence, is equivalent to : the category X cannot occur in the sequence Y (the nonrecursivity constraint). Conditions (1) and (2) forbade the deletion of a symbol (string) the structural description of which is not known (we have seen that the information about the unknown character of the initial symbol is contained in '->' itself) and the introduction of a symbol (string) in a context which is not defined respectively. They may be referred to a much more general constraint of recoverability. Conditions (1), (2) and (3) were imposed by the modelling through phrase markers. Only complying with them ensured the biunivoque correspondence derivation — syntactic tree. In (4) Y marked both symbols (sequences) of the theory and words (groups of words) of the concrete language. Resorting to a mixed inventory resulted in the duplicity rewriting rules (operating with symbols, symbol sequences taken as Y)/lexical rules (operating with words, groups of words taken as Y). Condition (5) forbade rules of the type : 8

S'Coord

VP -> VP~VP, and so on. Condition (5) confined the generation through rewriting rules to the domain of simple and expanded sentences, noun phrases, etc., not to that of the complex sentence, complex noun phrase, etc. Ko restrictions were formulated with respect to the noncontextual (context-free) or contextual (context-sensitive) nature of the rewriting rules, either of the X -> Y and X -> Y/A_C (AXC AYC) types being possible. By selecting the operator =>, restrictions (1), (2), (5) were eliminated, restrictions (3) and (4) were partially modified and restrictions (6) and (7) were added. => (and implicitly the transformations) was (were), therefore, defined as follows : (3') X is a category, 0 , a sequence, a concatenation of two sequences (which may include the concrete words of the actual language).

THE

40

TRANSFORMATIONAL

SYNTAX

OF ROMANIAN

(4') Y is one and only one sequence (which may include words of the actual language and 0 ) , or a category. (6) X represents the final expansion of one (two) derivation(s), or, in other words, X results from the previous application of one (two) sequence(s) of rewriting rules. (7) It is excluded that Y contain all the categories of X and only these ones (the non-reflexivity constraint). This restriction eliminated the zero transformation. Restrictions (3' —7) ensured transformations of the following type : (i)

B — X — A => B — A (the transformation has deleted X )

(ii) B — 0 — A = > B — X — A (the transformation has added X ) (iii) B —X —A=>B —A —X (the transformation has repositioned X and A), We consder that the repositioning is not ruled out by the non-reflexivity constraint (7). (iv) B —X —A=>X —B'—C, where B ' is "modified" as compared to B, B and X have been repositioned, A has been replaced by C. (v) (B - X - A f ( C - Y - D ) => B - X - F - D - Y - A , where the "fusion" of the two sequences which were marked by ( ) also results in deletion, adding, repositioning. (vi) A - B - X => 0 where (i), (ii), (iii). (iv), (vi) represent simple transformations confined to the level of a single sequence, and (v) represents a generalized transformation (operating on two sequences). It is not clear whether in Chomsky (1957) total deletion transformations such as that under (vi) were admitted, as they were not explicitly forbidden, nor is it clear whether "complete" transformations 46 of the type : (vii) A - B - C => D - E - F were tolerated. The fact that by X we understand exclusively the element(s) directly affected by the transformation allows us to speak about transformations in which X is a category (see (3)). The only transformation of this type is a deletion transformation X =>0 46

Which would correspond on the sequence level to the so-called E x c h a n g e Rules in

Chomsky-Halle

(1968).

I. FORMALISM

41

(see I above); therefore, on this level, there is no danger of confusion between phrase structure rules and transformations. The contrast rewriting rules / transformations seems to imply the opposition : a single operation / at least two operations contained in the respective process, in other words the opposition between the "primitive character" of the rule and the "complex" character of the transformation. Even in such a case as the one above, the transformation performs two operations which, if marking the context, become evident: A—X—B => A—0—B. Besides deleting X, the transformation also operates the repositioning of A and B. A series of operations performed through transformations not being able to be done through rewriting rules (the deletion of an element, the fusion of two sequences), => does not represent a mere abbreviatory notation in the sense of those listed in § 2, but a distinct operator. Restriction (6) adds to the above mentioned opposition the opposition primary/derived. If we associate to the enumerated conditions the fact t h a t the rewriting rules ensured the generation of structural descriptions graphically representable through trees and that, in keeping with (6) the transformations were performed on trees, we get a relatively complete image of the moment of maximal formal difference between rewriting rules and transformations. At that point the linguists were dealing exclusively with syntactic rewriting rules and syntactic transformations (as it comes out from the category or sequence nature of X, Y). The result of successively applying the rewriting rules and the transformations was constituted by the concrete utterances of the language being generated (as it comes out from Y containing concrete words of the language). We shall show the more recent state of fonnalisation of the concepts of rewriting rule and transformation, accepting as rewriting rules syntactic constituent rules exclusively, and as transformations syntactic transformations exclusively. , We shall not place in one or the other of the two classes the other rules which ensure at present the formulation of the phonological, semantic or syntactic component. But we shall discuss such an eventuality. The rewriting rules: X - > Y / A 0 or A X C -> A Y C are currently known as generation rules, generative rules, formation rules, syntactic rules, constituents rules, phrase structure rules, branching rules, etc. The operator -> confers on the affected symbol left of the arrow the quality of a dominant symbol X, and on the string (symbol) Y right of the arrow the quality of dominated symbol Y, expansion of X, expan-

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

42

sion X . The operator -> confers on the process the quality of rewriting rule and marks a domination relationship. W e say X dominates Y directly if X appears on the left and Y on the right of one and the same rule. W e say that X dominates Y indirectly, if Y appears as a dominated symbol in a posterior rule of the same derivation to which belongs the rule containing X as a dominant symbol. Eoss (1967a) defines the relationship of exhaustive domination, weak domination, immediate domination, etc., on which we shall not dwell here. Convergent researches carried out by Ross, Klima and Langacker reveal the importance of a special relation called "bounding" by Eoss, " i n construction w i t h " by Klima, " c o m m a n d " by Langacker. W e reproduce Langacker's definition : " W e will say that a node A 'commands' another node B if ( 1 ) A does not dominate B ; (2) B does not dominate A ; (3) A is in structure S' and (4) node S' dominates B " 4 7 . For the increased intuitive character of the graphic representation we give also Klima's " i n construction w i t h " definition 4 8 : " A constituent B is said to be in construction with another constituent A if a third constituent C directly dominates A and C also dominates B " . I n the tree : s

the object N P ( N P dominated by V P ) is in construction with the symbol N E G but the symbol N E G is not in construction with the object N P . I n Chomsky (1965), the structure of the dominant (dominated) element complies with restrictions (1) —(3) put forward in Chomsky (1957). I n the new variant, Chomsky eliminates the possibility Y = word of the concrete language (the lexical rules) contained in (4), introducing the so-called subcategorization rules. Practically, this elimination represents rather a desideratum. Elements like be, have, and, or in Eomanian de " o f " , nu " n o t " , care " w h i c h " , unde " w h e r e " , cind " w h e n " , cum " h o w " , a " t o " reoccur every now and then in

47

Cf. Langacker

18

Quotation

(1966),

p.

11.

f r o m L a n g a c k e r (1966), p. 23.

I. FORMALISM

43

the formulation of the constituent syntactic rules in all transformational grammars. Paradoxically, the concrete words of the language acquire in this way an abbreviatory status as compared to the symbols of the theory. As we will see, in the case of transformations, the practice of mentioning directly the words of the respective language is even more current. Such a practice has often theoretical consequences. In Chomsky (1965) 49, Eoss (1967 b) shows, "be is not treated as a verb, but rather as a terminal element of the base component"50. Consequently, Chomsky-Halle (1968) will explicitly eliminate be from the Y ( = Verb) class. Hence the necessity to demonstrate the verbal nature of the auxiliaries in Eoss (1967 b) 81 . The elimination of the lexical rules suggested to Chomsky (1965) the introducing of the fictitious dummy symbol A that is to appear as the "terminal expansion" of all lexical categories and to locate in the sequence arrived at the ulterior action of subcategorization rules 62. Weinreich (1966 a) proposes the replacement of the subcategorization signal A by a notation meant also to signal the belonging to the zone of major or minor classes. All members of a major class of categories are characterized by a "distinctive semantic feature" + N , -fV, etc. that marks the open class character, explains the possibility of mobile formations nonoccurring in the LEXICON, etc. All members of a minor class of categories are characterized by a syntactic feature (rendered by the inclusion between double square brackets : [[Preposition]]), with no semantic significance, marking the fact that: " . . . each minor class is specified by enumeration and has no distinguishing semantic feature; hence new members cannot be added at will" 53 . Any element belonging to the major class is by convention excluded from the minor class, any element belonging to a certain subclass of major elements is excluded from another class of elements. Weinreich introduces the following general constraint : "If P x , P 2 . . . F n is the set of semantic features which define the major classes of lexemes, and if Gx, G2 . . . Gm is the set of syntactic markers (which define minor classes of lexemes), then [ + i \ ] implies [—FJ such that i =j= j and Gj implies — P, for any 1 < i < n " 54. 49

Cf. Chomsky (1965), p. 102. Cf. R o s s (1967b), p. 55. 51 Cf. R o s s (1967b), p. 1 : "In § 1 I present t e n arguments t h a t indicate • t h a t auxiliaries and verbs are really b o t h members of t h e same lexical category, verb" and "In § 2, I present t w o argum e n t s , which indicate t h a t t h e y must be main verbs". 50

52 53 54

Cf. Chomsky (1965), p. 122. Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 432. Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 461.

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X

44

OF ROMANIAN

Weinreich describes in details his innovation as compared to Chomsky (1965) : "The preterminal strings generated by Chomsky's categorial component are labelled trees containing symbols of two kinds : category symbols (drawn from the 'nonterminal vocabulary' of the language) and a fixed 'dummy symbol', A, which constitutes an instruction for the insertion of a morpheme from the dictionary. We modify this theory to distinguish between two dummy symbols : • , for the insertion of a morpheme belonging to a major class, and A, for the insertion of a morpheme belonging to a minor class. Moreover we postulate the existence of an empty dummy symbol, O. which is not replaced by a morpheme from the dictionary" 65 . He then adds : "As a final revision of the categorial component, let us establish that each symbol which is mapped into • is not a mere category symbol (such as Noun or Verb), but a complex symbol consisting of a category symbol and a semantic feature. The 'name' of this feature is identical with the name of the category, but the notation is not entirely redundant, since the categorial portion of the complex symbol alludes to its segmental distinctness, whereas the feature portion alludes to its meaning"56. In the structure of the grammatical base, Weinreich (1966a) encompasses both complex symbols and dummy symbols A, • , O ; the former even seem to dominate the latter : "The base of the grammar consists of a series of branching rules with recursive power. The rules are defined on an alphabet containing symbols of three types : category symbols, complex symbols, and dummies. A complex symbol is a category symbol paired with a matrix of semantic features. The category symbols include such symbols as Noun Phrase, Circumstance, Adjective. There are three dummy symbols : • , A and O into which all category symbols are mapped. The base generates preterminal strings . . . The preterminal string generated by the base is, jointly with the dictionary, the input to the Lexical Rule. The dictionary is an unordered set of morphemes. Some morphemes are triplets (P, G, ¡i.), in which P is a sequence of phonemes, G is a syntactic marker, and ¡x is a cluster, or configuration of clusters, of semantic features . . . Other morphemes are pairs (P, ¡x). The Lexical Eule maps each occurrence of A into a triplet (P, G, ¡J.) and each occurrence of • into any morpheme" 57. According to Weinreich, the syntactic-semantic rewriting rules do not indicate only the branching out of categories but also the preferential order of semantic interpretation, the direct or mediated character of the 56

Cf. W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 a ) , p.

66

Cf. W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 a ) , p. 4 4 3 .

57

Cf. W e i n r e i c h

( 1 9 6 6 a ) , pp.

433. 443-444.

I. FORMALISM

45

interpretation. Grammatical categories are opposed to lexical categories to the extent to which their semantic interpretation is anterior and direct. In the case of lexical categories, Weinreich suggests the necessity of a "delayed" interpretation and with this view introduces the differentiated mediatory symbols A , • . These symbols have simultaneously a semantic and a phonological value. On the phonological level A , • indicate the fact that there is at least one representation that corresponds to the respective category; O indicates the fact that there is no representation corresponding to the category thus rewritten. However, it is not clear whether O has or has not a semantic "value", if in the process of interpretation it has a corresponding semantic feature. Nor is it clear why in a representation like the one below 5 8 , S, Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase are not specified by O or A : S [Assertion]

o

A

A

•

A

A A may dominate a ramification exclusively in the case of idiomatic expressions. This means inserting in the L E X I C O N all idiomatic expressions "as categories corresponding to nonterminal symbols of the base : by heart as a Circumstance, shoot the breeze as a Verbal, etc.)". For example :

58

Cf. W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 a ) , p.

452.

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

46

S [Assertion]

Main Verb

Determiner

Veröl

[[Verbal]]

[+Verb,+ Activity,+ Vocal,..]

[[Tense]] NP[-Count] [••Present] shooi

Determiner

ÜI

Noun

breeze

Number a

Null

¿

When the idiomatic expression represents a Verbal Phrase (in which an object is to be introduced), Weinreich proposes to mark the slot by • : pull t ' s leg 59 . Chomsky (1965) gives up (5), at least with respect to the symbol S, with the implicit possibility of extending this liberty also to other symbols. Recursivity refers to the "innovatory recursivity" in which Y is represented by X -f Q. It does not include the reflexive recursivity in which Y simply repeats X . It is * which marks the unlimited repetition of the symbol and constitutes the "recursive innovation" 60. In what follows we propose to limit the generative power of constituent rules by modifying restriction (4) above. In our opinion this restriction should assume the form (4") Y is a sequence (giving up the possibility Y is a category), and such formulae as : (i) S VP (ii) VP -> V (iii) NP -> N (iv) AvP -> Av and so on, would not be admitted. 59 60

Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 454. One should note t h a t S * constitutes a string, not an element.

I. FORMALISM

47

This modification was suggested by Ross' S-pruning convention : " . . . delete any embedded node S which does not branch (i.e., which does not immediately dominate at least two nodes)" 61. Eoss underlines that the S-pruning principle should be regarded as universal : "this principle should not be thought of as a rule which is stated as one of the ordered rules of any grammar, but rather as a condition upon the well-formedness of trees, which is stated once in linguistic theory, and applies to delete any nonbranching 8 nodes which occur in any derivation of sentences of any language" 62. He justifies confining the convention to embedded S by the necessity to prevent the deletion of certain monomember imperative sentences of the type Go home (in which S would not be dominated) 63 . Kuroda proposed the extension of the tree-pruning convention also to nodes such as ÏTP, VP. As to us, conventions concerning the structure of a categorial tree and its being more sharply or vaguely opposed to linguistic intuition are the same regardless of whether the respective tree has or has not undergone transformations. In other words, if we postulate the inadequate character of a tree in which, after the transformations, a dominated symbol S does not branch further into at least two dominated nodes, we think that a tree in which, before the transformations, a dominated symbol S does not branch is at least as inadequate as the other one. Moreover, we believe that branching is compulsory for any node in a tree. Otherwise, the introduction of nonsequential expansions would result in synonymic redundancy. Let us consider the following derivation : S -> PredP PredP -> VP VP

V

corresponding to the tree : S I PreiP I VP YI 61 61 63

Cf. Ross (1967a), p. 44. Ibidem. This depends on the syntactic interpretation we adopt for imperative utterances.

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

48

It is obvious that in such a tree the branches represent but a filiation prejudice regarding the symbols. Without any substantial linguistic loss, this tree could consist of : S I PredP, I

or

y

8 I vp, I

or

S I V

y

The rules construct an interesting linguistic tree (they make a relevant structural description) to the extent in which they ensure the branching out of every dominant node into at least two dominated nodes. At the moment when the branching operation ceases, the generation ends and gives way to interpretation. Starting from the Chomsky (1965) concept of intrinsic order, one could formulate the following constraint: Except for the absolute initial rule any rule that rewrites a dominant symbol X follows after the rule in the expansion of which we find the symbol X. For instance the rule : (1) PredP -> Y P ' A v P follows after the rule : (2) S

NP~PredP

and the rule : (3) VP -»• V~NP follows after rule (1). "Follows after" means : is linearly ordered "operating on the string as modified by all earlier applicable rules" 84. In other words, every rewriting rule (n) is simultaneously applied to all sections of the expansion of rule (n—1) in which we find the dominant symbol of the rule (n). The rule sequence ( 2 ) - ( l ) - ( 3 ) above is a PARTIAL DERIVATION where " —" mark the ordered character of the derivation. The rules (n) whose dominant symbols X, Y, Z are to be found in the expression of the same rule (n —1) cannot be ordered. They are in a simultaneous ordering relationship. We are using the term simultaneous order«

Cf. C h o m s k y - H a l l e ( 1 9 6 8 ) , p.

341.

I. FORMALISM

49

ing in the sense of Chomsky-Halle (1968) : "all rules apply to the input string rather than to the string as modified by earlier rules" 6 \ A derivation including simultaneous rules will be called by us A PARTIALLY ORDERED DERIVATION. Although mentioned with regularity, the context A—0 seems practically assumed to be 0 and implicitly the rewriting rules seem to be defined as context-free 66 in Chomsky (1965), regardless of the fact that the author explicitly distinguishes the possibility of both context-free and context sensitive ones. Up to now we have not met with context-sensitive constituent rules in the concrete partial grammars. Summarizing, syntactic rewriting rules represent a category — sequence conversion process in a biunivoque correspondence relation with a syntactic tree. The term "rewriting" as well as the operator -» mark the disappearance of X in every stage of the derivation. In other words, rules of this type operate the sequential substitution of each category up to the moment when, by exhausting the categories, the generative process is blocked, no further substitution and no other way of rewriting except reflexively : X ->X (where X does not disappear from the outcome expansion) being possible. The transformations. The operator => ( = "transform any known string that satisfies the structural description specified in"), — as compared with the definition in § 1 we have operated exclusively the substitution "element" — "string" — confers upon the string left of the double arrow the quality of structural description, and upon the string right of the double arrow the quality of structural change. The operator => confers upon the total string the quality of transformation and marks a change relation 67 . As compared to Chomsky (1957), Chomsky (1965) modifies restrictions (3'), and (6). The transform is no longer made up of two sequences S resulting from two derivations, since in the new version of the theory it is the recursive rewriting rules that ensure the generation of the sentence. The transformations operate directly upon complex sentences, they no longer concatenate kernel sentences. 65

Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 342. Compare, in Chomsky (1965), p. 120 : "The categorial component consists solely of branching rules, -which are possibly all context-free" with p. 112 : "Branching rules and subcategorization rules may be context-free . . . or context-sensitive ..." «' See Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 20. 68

50

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

The transformations become semantically non-relevant, they are mere syntactic filters, obeying the constraints imposed on the strings produced by the rewriting rules. The Chomsky (1957) opposition simple transformations/generalized transformations disappears. When underlining the importance of eliminating the generalized transformations, Chomsky (1965) uses with respect to the transformations the term interpretive : "In the earlier version of the theory, the recursive property was assigned to the transformational component, in particular, to the generalized transformations and the rules for forming Transformation-markers. Now the recursive property is a feature of the base component, in particular, of the rules that introduce the initial symbol S in designated positions in strings of category symbols. There are, apparently, no other recursive rules in the base. The transformational component is solely interpretive''''68 (italics ours). The most spectacular elaboration of transformational formalism lies in the introduction into syntax of a concept initially developed in phonology, that of transformational cycle (in the exposition of which we shall follow Chomsky-Halle (1968)). This resulted from the necessity of extrinsic ordering, by the linguist, of the transformational processes in connection with which the concept of intrinsic order could not be used. A transformational cycle is defined by the following conditions 69 : (1) the transformations are linearly ordered T1 . . . Tn by hypothesis (where Tn = delete the proximate abbreviatory notations). (2) each transformation is applied to the maximum string which does not include medial abbreviatory notations. (3) after the application of Tn the cycle is repeated by applying again Tl. (4) with the exception of the case in which Tn occurs, the transformation Tj cannot be applied after the transformation Ti (j for a linking construction, -t—>for a nesting construction, etc.)" 97 . Cf. also our § 2. •« C f . W e i n r e i c h 97

I d e m , p.

460.

(1966a),

p.

429.

I. FORMALISM

61

The syntactic tree of the sentence being simultaneously semantic, the semantic tree of the word is — by analogy — simultaneously syntactic. This hypothesis leads Weinreich to another one : the word is, from a semantic point of view, an enunciation in which the place of categories is taken by (syntactic-)semantic features : "It is a basic tenet of the present approach that the semantic structures of complex expressions and of simplex expressions are in principle representable in the same form, viz. in terms of clusters and configurations of semantic features. Another way of saying it is that definitions of words have semantic structures of the same general form as sentences of a language" 98 and " . . . every relation that may hold between components of a sentence also occurs among the components of a meaning of a dictionary entry. This is as much as to say that the semantic part of a dictionary entry is a sentence — more specifically, a deep structure sentence, i.e. a Generalized Phrase-Marker" ". The semantic rules involved in the semantic process defined by Weinreich are : — propagation rules of the semantic features alongside the branches of the syntactic-semantic tree (redistribution rules and concord rules) — transfer rules (that trace the semantic feature from one node to another) — projection rules of the linking and nesting type. A redistribution rule is a convention of the form : "If A [¡Xj] is a complex symbol in a terminal string (where ¡xx is a cluster of semantic features), and if Q [[G]] [¡x2] is a lexeme in the terminal string (where [[G]] may be null, and where [¡x2] is a set of semantic features), and if A [¡x2] dominates Q [[Gj] [ M , replace [[G]j [¡x2] by [¡xj [[G]] [¡x2]" "o. The redistribution rules therefore propagate the semantic features of the dominant complex symbols towards the semantic representations of the lexical categories A extracted from the dictionary, depending on the position they occupy in the tree. They account for the semantic pressure exerted by the syntactic pattern of the sentence on the words introduced into the sentence. The concord rules operate as follows : "If A (¡x) is a lexeme in a terminal string (where ^ is a set of semantic features, one of which is ¡x^, and O is a blank dummy dominated by a category symbol K ; and if fx, is a member of the set of concordant features enumerated for the language, and A ... K is the path through the marker from A [fx] to K and is a member 98 99 100

Idem, p. 419. Idem, p. 446. Idem, p. 457.

62

T H E TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

of the set of concord paths enumerated for the language, replace O by M"101If, for instance, in the case of the English language the feature +Plural is postulated as a concordant feature with the concord path Flex-Noun Phrase — Sentence — Verb Phrase — A ( = auxiliary) — Flex it follows that the symbol Flex under Verb Phrase rewritten as O will incorporate the feature +Plural. Thus the concord rules account for the "grammatical sense" of the sentence. In Weinreich (1966 a) the transfer rule runs as follows : " I f A [ ¡ j . < v > ] and K [(JL] are lexemes in a terminal string (where [J. and N' are sets of inherent semantic features and y is a transfer feature), and if the path A .... K is a member of the set of transfer paths, replace [¡J. < v > ] by [¡JL] and ! > ' ] by t>'v]" «». The transfer paths are to be traced. We think that in examining this question great benefit may be drawn from resorting to Ross' theory about the syntactic islands. After using the redistribution rules and the transfer rules which constitute a first stage of assembling the features, the so-called conflation rule 103, which eliminates tautologies, and construal rule, which eliminates contradictions 104, are introduced. The conflation rule assumes the form of the general constraint : " I f [aF 1? aF a . . . . o c F n ] is a cluster of semantic features (where a = + or a = — for each a), and if a F , = aFj, delete otFj" 105. Therefore, it eliminates the duplication, triplication a.s.o. of semantic features identically specified. The construal rule has a much more complex character, to the extent in which it implies (in view of solving the contradiction engendered by the positive and negative specification of the same feature within the same semantic unit) the structuring of a new semantic unit. This structuring of a new semantic unit seems to depend on the fact that the contradicting features proceed from redistribution or from transfer. Some construal rules constitute literary conventions. In this sense the personification is to be regarded as a construal rule structuring a semantic Idem,

p.

455.

i» 2 I d e m ,

p.

459.

101

103

I d e m , p. 4 6 1 .

101

Ibidem.

105

Ibidem.

I. FORMALISM

63

entity (a unit, a matrix) by solving the contradiction between -fAnimate and —Animate106. Sometimes the application of the construal rule is associated with specific morphophonemic processes, such as for instance in English the change over from Adjective to intransitive Verb associated with the obligatory addition of the suffix -en (whiten, gladden), the change over from Noun to Verb with the obligatory addition of the suffix -ize (atomize), etc. 107 . That is why, according to Weinreich, the semantic calculator is "in line with, but ahead of" the morphophonemic component of the grammar 108. By postulating the conflation rule and the construal rule, Weinreich (1966 a) accounts for the active character of the interpretive capacity, neglected in the K F theory (in which the speaker can interpret only the constructions which observe the selective restrictions and, like the machine, is blocked when these restrictions are not completely satisfied). In this context it seems interesting to refer to the opposition between a logistic system and a natural language — such as it has been formulated by Ziff (1967) : " . . . if in a logistic system I come across a contradiction, I cross out the system. But if in my language I find a contradiction, I cross out the contradiction" 109. The natural principle of semantic interpretation would therefore be that of the universal interpretability of expressions, regardless of their degree of syntactic (semantic) deviation. The interpretation is of course performed with a minimal construal effort. Ziff (1967) formulates the following interpretation principle of the common (non-literary) language : " . . . construe what is said in such a way that, with a minimum of interpretation, it is significant" 110. In poetic language the necessary quantity of interpretation postulated for the understanding of the text increases. The application of the two Weinreich projection rules, the linking and the nesting rule, becomes possible only after the previous action of the redistribution, concord, transfer, conflation and construal rules. 106 F o r other cases of construal rules see Weinreich ( 1 9 6 6 a ) , p. 4 6 5 : " T h e a t t r i b u t i o n

of

femaleness t o beloved machines b y means of female pronouns is a c o m m o n invocation of a p a r t i c u l a r subrule of t h e Construal R u l e in wide E n g l i s h speaking male circles. T h e construal of new entities out of t h e conflict of redistributed [ + C o u n t ] and inherent [ — Count] . . . is reminiscent of t h e discourse of people a c c u s t o m e d b y their profession, t o deal with m a n y varieties of t h e m a t e r i a l designated b y t h e w

[ — Count]

noun".

Cf. W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 a ) , p. 4 6 5 .

108

Idem,

^

Cf. Ziff ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 1 3 8 .

p.

466.

no

Cf. Ziff ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 1 3 2 . See also L a k o f f ( 1 9 6 5 ) , p. B - 3 : " S p e a k e r s usually u n d e r s t a n d a

sentence in t e r m s of t h e best (italics ours) analysis t h a t t h e y can give it, t h o u g h in c e r t a i n very n a t u r a l situations t h e y c a n provide other less c o r r e c t a n a l y s e s " .

64

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

The linking rules would correspond to the modification projection discussed by Katz and Fodor to the extent in which the result of applying them is an "unstructured heap of features" m . They may be represented by : M (a, b) + N (c, d) = MN (a, b, c, d), in which case the derived semantic unit is a cluster and the operation is defined by Weinreich as "fully-linking", and represented by : M (a, b) + + N (c->d) = MIST (a, c, -> b d) 112 , in which case the outcome is a configuration but "there is in the meaning of each constituent at least one feature which enters into a cluster in the meaning of the entire construction". The last is defined as "impure linking". Here are some constructions formed by linking : attribute -Reenter (e.g. peretele alb "the white wall" equivalent with albeata peretelui "the whiteness of the wall", etc.), noun + copula + predicative (peretele este alb "the wall is white"), etc. However, comparing the noun attribute with the copula + predicative linking, Weinreich points out that: " . . . the semantic features joined by predication would have to retain a bracketing correlated with the subject-predicate division, and only the formation of an attribute would entail the deletion of the bracketing, as in : Predication : (a) + (b) = ((a) (b)) Attribution : ((a)

(b)) > (a, b)" 113.

If we admit this fact, it would result either that the transformation of deleting the copula through which the attributive constructions are usually accounted for is to a certain extent semantically relevant, or that the predicative noun and the attribute exist alike in the deep structure. The linking is called by Weinreich (1966a) "impure linking" in such cases as : A small elephant is big, detective woman/woman detective, etc. where the features enter an order relation "with the feature listed first being more 'emphatic' or foregrounded" 114. When analyzing examples of impure linking, Weinreich (1966a) speaks about the tendency of contextual specialization manifest in the groups of relatively ordered features ("littleness in elephants would be different from littleness otherwise" 115); this observation was the starting point for researches aiming at defining the concept of semantic calibration undertaken by Katz (1966) and W. Chafe. 111

Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 410. M, N = words; a, b, c, d, e, etc. = semantic features; MN = a construction. u3 Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 421. i " Idem, p. 423. 116 Ibidem. 112

I. FORMALISM

65

The nesting rules result in the partial amalgamation of some of the semantic features of the element A with some of the semantic features of the amalgamated element B. The semantic representation thus derived is a configuration in which several irreducible semantic nuclei subsist. Such is the case of the amalgamation transitive verb-complement in which the meaning of the complement — although incorporated in the meaning of the verb — subsists as such in the total semantic representation. Besides the rules that operate amalgamations in the sense of delimitation 116 (restricting the reference class of the respective word by numerical or non-numerical quantifiers, by deictic elements, etc.) and the rules that operate amalgamations in the sense of modalizing (= "an instruction to interpret the constructed semantic entity not literally but with some qualification, such as suspension of belief about the truth of an assertion or a disclaimer of responsibility for its truth" 117), the nesting rules compose the class of non-linking projection rules. Compared with the projection rules formulated by J. Katz and J. Fodor, the rules to be found in the Semantic Process Calculator 118 conceived by Weinreich obviously present a much more refined character. The Chomsky-Halle (1968) phonological rules. The authors define the phonological rules by the general formula : X->Y IfZA Z2

or " A -> B/X Y where A and B represent single units of the phonological system (or the null element); the arrow stands for 'is actualized as'; the diagonal line means 'in the context'; and X and Y represent, respectively, the left- and right - hand environment in which A appears. These environments may be null, or may consist of units or strings of units of various sorts, and may also include labeled brackets representing the syntactic category of the string to which the rule is applied" 119. 116 Weinreich (1966a), p. 427 underlines the partially inadequate character of the term delimitation

and motivates syntactically the distinction

linkiti^ldelimilalion.

117

Cf. Weinreich (1966a), p. 428.

118

Idem, p. 445 : " W e avoid the term semantic component since the base as well as the dic-

tionary contribute to the semantic structure of sentences". 119

B -

Cf.

c . 153

Chomsky-Halle

(1968),

p.

332.

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

66

We consider necessary and nonredundant the mentioning of both general formulas given by the mentioned authors, to the extent in which one formula specifies only the possibility of a (simultaneous) paradigmatic context, and the other one specifies exclusively a syntagmatic linearly ordered context. A centralizing formula appears incidentally :

J

X ^ [ocF] / Y [ Q Z 120. The linear ordering of the rules relies on the following two general hypotheses : "(1) It is always possible to order the rules in a sequence and to adhere strictly to this ordering in constructing derivations without any loss of generality as compared to an unordered set of rules or a set ordered on a different principle. (2) Such linear ordering makes it possible to formulate grammatical processes that would otherwise not be expressible with comparable generality" 121. Processes expressible by the simple linear ordering of the rules are sometimes the exceptions. Chomsky-Halle (1968) define the following types of rules within the phonological component: — phonological rules j 0 ^ 0 ^ 0 (noncyclic — exchange rules, — transformation rules proper, — phonetic rules. The cyclic phonological rules observe the principle of the transformational cycle : (1) "The rules of the phonological component are linearly ordered in a sequence E x , . . . . , R n . (2) Each rule applies to a maximal string containing no internal brackets. (3) After applying the rule Rn, we proceed to the rule R r (4) Unless an application of R n intervenes, the rule Rj cannot be applied after the rule Rf (j < i) has applied. (5) R n is the rule : erase innermost brackets" m . The noncyclic phonological rules operate on the nonsegmental units # . Formally, both types are rules in which the structural change may affect one or more features of the same unit (segmental, nonsegmental) or may introduce a (phonetic) phonological feature. 1:0

I d e m , p. 4 2 0 .

121

Idem,

122

I d e m , p. 2 0 ;

p.

18. see also p.

349.

I. FORMALISM

67

The rules inserting a feature or the epenthesis rules inserting a unit have the form : 0 ->B/X_Y

123

.

An example of such like rules may be : (I) 0

e/C

[-¡-Son] #

(II) 0 - > k / C _ [ + S o n ] # where case (I) is more plausible, more "natural" than case (II). Chomsky-Halle (1968) bring into discussion the so-called exchange rules known also as polarity rules. These rules assuming the form F, -> —P; would be contained as a virtuality in a formal (phonological ) theory which resorts to the variable a. The authors considei that such rules are likely to account for the phonological evolution of the language. As we shall see further on, the cyclic (noncyclic) phonological rules and the exchange rules are transformations to the extent in which "the domain of their applicability and the manner in which they apply is determined by the phrase structure of a string, not just by the sequence of elementary symbols of which the string is constituted. More specifically, the application of the cyclical rules depends not only upon the formatives in the surface structure but also upon the way they are categorized" 124. The phonological transformations are however, local transformations, "of a very narrow and restricted class" 125. There are, however, also phonological rules that affect (modify) several units simultaneously (contraction rules, metathesis rules). These are transformation rules proper, opposed to local transformation rules126. The evaluation of the phonological rules is done, as for the rest of the grammar, by counting the symbols (0 included). The metathesis rule cannot be evaluated through the mere counting of features, because " 'its cost' would be less than that of a rule with the same structural description (SD) and with a minimal structural change (SO) of one feature, for example, in the vowel" 127. In order to evaluate the cost of a metathesis rule, the authors suggest the convention that all 123

Idem, p. 375. Idem, p. 20. 125 Ibidem; see also Chomsky (1965), p. 89. 12S Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 360: " T o state contraction rules, therefore, we must admit into the phonology rules t h a t are most naturally formulated as transformational rules". 12 ' Idem, p. 361. 124

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

68

its segments (in our opinion all the segments repositioned in consequence of a metathesis rule) be supplemented by a special feature -¡-Metathesis. The cyclic (noncyclic) rules, exchange rules, contraction rules, metathesis rules operate on phonological features. Phonological rules convert binary specifications into numerical coefficients. The numerical specification might impose a more detailed knowledge of the entity in which the ± specifications it has to substitute are contained. In this would lie its local transformation character. § 5. METASTRUCTURES

We consider that the contextual feature and the rule-feature represent METASTRUCTURES to the extent in which they result from the postulation of the primitive elements and of the modalities of string concatenation (i.e. rules), in other words to the extent in which they represent second degree structures. The contextual features. Chomsky (1965) operates with unanalyzable syntactic-semantic features of the type [ + [ -f Animate] [+Abstract]] considering that only in this way the grammar can justify the deep subject-object relations. Research carried out by Lakoff (1965) showed that this desideratum may be attained also in a grammar that operates in terms of analyzable features 128. Therefore, by analysis, a feature like the one above would divide the contextual features into +[[-(-Animate] ] and + [ [+Abstract]] and would allow the regrouping — impossible in the case of nonanalyzable contextual features — of the verbs presenting partial similitude in th£ object (subject) selection. We adopted a similar point of view when defining the transitive verbs of the type a învâta (pe cineva ceva) "to teach (someone something)", a trece (pe cineva clasa) "to promote (someone into another class)" by the simultaneous occurrence of the features. " +[

pe'{ + Animate)KP]

+[

pe~( — Animate )NP]

128

Cf. L a k o f f ( 1 9 6 5 ) , p.

E-2.

I. FORMALISM

69

and not the nonanalyzable contextual feature: +[

pe~( + Animate)NP~2>e~(—Animate)NP]

As we have shown we consider that every contextual feature is a syntactic feature. McCawley (1968) and Katz-Fodor (1963) show that the formulation of a contextual feature must be done exclusively in terms of a syntactic constituent as a whole and not in terms of each lexical category. Otherwise one could not formulate the contextual features in terms of which the utterances (1) and (2) may be defined as anomalous, and (3) as normal; * (1) My buxom neighbour is the father of two. * (2) My sister is the father of two. (3) My neighbour is the father of two. According to McCawley (1968) " . . . there are no cases on record of a verb which will exclude a lexical item as the head of its subject but allow the subject to be a noun phrase which splits the same semantic information between the head and the modifier ; for example, there are no verbs on record which exclude a bachelor as subject but allow an unmarried man" m. On the other hand, both Lakoff (1965) and McCawley (1968) operate with contextual features in which binary lexical features are contained. In the examples before, the contextual features represent syntactic features interpreted semantically. If we isolate the syntactic feature from the syntactic feature interpreted semantically we are in the position to perceive the fact that all syntactic features are but another (sequential) way of representing the domination, in construction with, etc. relations established within a syntactic tree; operating in terms of Ross' syntactic islands we might say that contextual features represent a modality of analyzing the syntactic islands. The grammar could therefore include only once such a convention as: in a syntactic tree (the terminal nodes of which are constituted in keeping with the definition given to phrase structure rules in § 4, by a> • > lexical categories, or O grammatical formatives), each node is defined automatically in terms of the directly dominating grammatical category and in terms of the in construction with grammatical categories. The definition through the directly dominant category is marked by using such features as + C (where C = the directly dominant feature). 129

McCawley (1968), p.

133-134.

70

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

We underline the fact that the notation + 0 is liable to conceal the contextual character of the dominance phenomenon. The formulation of dominance features in terms of a paradigmatic context: 0 j is much more desirable. For the understanding of what comes next one should bear in mind this acception of the features +N", +V, etc. The definition through the category with which the element being defined is in construction with is marked by contextual features of the type + [ C], + [ 0 ] where 0 occupies in relation to " " the position occupied in the tree by the symbol A which 0 is in construction with. In other words, in a tree like :

the convention mentioned above will provide the defining through + NP 1 of the symbols De^ and , through + S of the symbols KP 1 and Prec P, through + yp

of the symbols V and NP 2 , through + KP„ of

the symbols Det 2 and 1sT2, through + Pred •red P ]j of the symbols YP and AvP, through -f AvP of the symbols Det 3 and Av. Moreover, the same convention will provide the defining through + [irP x ] of the symbols Y, VP, PredP (which are in construction with KP t ), the defining through +[Det! ], of the symbol in construction with Detj, the defining through + [ V P ] of the symbols Det 3 , Av, AvP which are in construction with VP, the defining through + [ V ] of the symbols NP 2 , Det 2 , N2 which are in construction with V. In a syntactic tree all contextual features propagate downwards to the immediately dominated node ; after the propagation (distribution) of all its contextual features, the directly dominant node is suppressed and the linearization of the above-mentioned tree becomes possible. Een-

I. FORMALISM

71

dering its successive phases, let us first mark all the contextual features resulting from the in construction with relations :

Introducing from the top downwards within each symbol the dominance contextual feature + [ 0 1 we get the progressive dislocation of the tree.

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

72

Beginning with phase ( I I I ) both the dominance contextual features and the "in construction with" contextual features propagate simultaneously. Phase (IH) •Li] -[NR!] Pet,

+ U ] +[NPi ] Ü1 [+ Det—J

NPi +[V-]

V + [NP r ]

Det3 +[GV-] N2 +[V-]

Dthj +[v-]

Phase (IV)

+ +

S NPj

+ +

S

+

PredP j

-fLNP^J

De^

C+Det,-]

it]

it] +[-

+

J VP]

+ |PredP

+[NP 1 .__]

+

+[Np!_]

j

VP

+[NP1_J

AvP

+[YP_] BeL

+[V—]

+[VP-]

Det, +[V

]

j

+[NP1_]

+

NP a +[NPX — ]

+ |PredP

+[V

]

+

PredPl

J

-I- [>TPi .JAvP

+ [VP_] Av

]

73

I. F O R M A L I S M

Phase ( V )

+

+ +

+ —

Deti

+

+ NPt

PredP '

JPredPl

— 1ST1

L

—

+

J

+

"PredP

—

+

+ +[NPX—]

+ [ ^ „ 1

+

+[V—]

AvP

_JAvP

+ [VP-]

DeL

Av

+[YP_]

+[V_]

Det2

—

+[NP1_]

+[VP_]

NPJ

+

PredP

—

+LNP!-]

NP,

+

+[NP1_]

VP

ypl

+[NP,_]

+

PredP

—

+[NP1__]

H-tDet,-]

+

+

+ [VP—]

N2 +[V_]

+[V-]

A t the end of phase ( V ) the initial syntactic tree is wholly linearized. Moreover, if we make abstraction of the lexical categories, the columns are exclusively composed of contextual syntactic features. Isolating the contextual syntactic features from the lexical categories and suppressing the repetition of the same feature we reach the following final representation : Phase ( V I ) S

+ +

I Bet1

+ 'S" +

"PrepP

+

S"

+

PrepP" —

+[Det1_]+[NP1_..]

+

+[NPr-]

VP

V

+

S

+

Prep

+

P]

I" Prep P T

+

•

J Prep P L

.

+[NP,_.. ]

+

VP

+|NP2-

+

NP,

+[V_]

+[ v—[

Bet,

S l " I

+[NP1_]

+

AvP

+ [VP_]

BeL

+[NP1_.]

+

AvP

+[VP__]

Av

74

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

Phase (VI) represents the interpretation of the syntactic tree generated by means of the phrase structure rules. We suggest that the semantic interpretation intervene only after having achieved the syntactic interpretation. In this way, the semantic interpretation would no longer operate upon trees as such but upon their linearized interpretation, not upon independent categories but upon the categories contained in the syntactic features. The refining of this approach will probably have to take into account the possible coupling of linearization with transformations. We remind our readers that Chomsky (1965) defines the transformations through their interpretive character, and that Langendoen discusses about the function of increasing the accessibility to the deep structure which the transformations perform 1 3 0 . We also underline the fact that introducing the downward propagation of contextual features from direct dominant node to dominated node we have but limited syntactically and made more specific the syntacticsemantic redistribution rule formulated by Weinreich (1966a). The Rule-feature. In Ohomsky-Halle's (1968) phonological component each segment of each morpheme is subcategorized in relation to each phonological rule. This is equivalent to the formulation of diacritic features 131 of the type «Rule n, where n marks the number of the rule in the ordering 132 . The exclusion of an element specified —Rule n from the domain of the rule n may be rigorously done owing to the automatic propagation of all the non-phonological features of the morpheme (word) upon all the segments included in its phonological representation. The aRule n features have two sources : the readjustment rules and the LEXICON 1 3 3 . Lakoff (1965) sums up in the following way the constraints regarding the rule-features implied in Chomsky-Halle (1968) : (1) "No rule-feature may be mentioned in the structural description of a rule. (2) All morphemic features, including rule-features, are projected by a mechanical procedure into each phonological segment. 130

Cf. Langendoen (1967), p. 6. Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 373. 132 Idem, p. 374. 133 Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 375 : ". . . the feature [ - R u l e n] must either be introduced by readjustment rules or appear as a diacritic feature in the lexical representation of an item". 131

I. FORMALISM

75

(3) If Eule n is a phonological rule, then it may not apply to a segment marked [ - E u l e n]" 13i . By specifying each lexical element in relation to each phonological rule of the grammar, the linguist eliminates the necessity of introducing arbitrary features to account for the exceptions. In this way, the definition of the exception concept grows more precise and, moreover, it becomes evident that the exceptions from the phonological rules are morphemic and not segmental by nature (since the whole morpheme receives the rule-feature specification). Lakoff (1965) suggests the subcategorization of each element included in the LEXICON in relation to all the rules of the grammar and in relation to all the structural descriptions of the transformations contained in the respective grammar. § 6. SCHEMES

By using the abbreviatory notations or the variables, successive rules may be regrouped in a unique SCHEME. Chomsky-Halle (1968) metaphorically call this abbreviatory process "notational transformations" 135 and consider it to be of vital importance in estimating the linguistically relevant generality degree of the formulations. The evaluation of the grammar (according to the number of symbols used in it) may be operated only starting from schemes : "The "value" of a sequence of rules is the reciprocal of the number of symbols in the minimal schema that expands to this sequence" 136 . • We consider that a good knowledge of the types of symbols, of auxiliary expressions, of strings, of rules, of metastructures and of schemes nowadays made use of in a syntactic, phonological, semantic context is indispensable for the following reasons : — from a formal point of view, oppositions of the type primitive symbols I auxiliary expressions, strings / rules, rewriting rules / transformation rules are to be found — as we have seen — on all grammar levels ; — the domain of the syntactic, semantic, phonological symbols, of their typical concatenation rules cannot be defined in isolation. We have seen that a phonological decision is in part equivalent to a semantic decision (and vice versa) to the extent in which in the LEXICON" the phono154 135 136

Cf. Lakoff (1965), p. 1 - 6 . Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968), p. 335. Cf. Chomsky-Halle (1968).

76

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

logical matrices are coupled with the semantic representations. We have also seen the semantic repercussions following the suppression of terminal syntactic symbols ; — a series of rules double redundantly within one grammar component the action of rules within another component. We have seen, for instance, that such is the case with the subcategorization rules of the base syntactic subcomponent in relation to the redistribution rules of the Weinreich syntactic-semantic component and also in relation to the selective restrictions introduced in the specific idiosyncratic LEXICON readings by Katz-Fodor (1963).

CHAPTER

PHRASE

II

STRUCTURE

RULES

For the generation of the deep structure of contemporary Romanian sentences we consider relevant the following phrase structure rules (schemes). (Cl) # S # -M # S #~Coord~# S # ] \ SAV~Pro~N*ucleus (02) Coord ->• Conj "Correi (C3) SAV -> (INT)~(KEG)rSav (04) Pro pronoun~Flex (05) Nucleus -> (Impers)~E"P~PredP NP -» (Det)~Nominal~Art~(Eel)~((.Z)i?~Inf)~Con;p# S it) (06) (07) Det -»- (Neg)~(Int)~determinative~Flex (08) Nominal -> Personal Pro~i 1ST "Flex Nmz"#S# (09) Eel -> K^Nmzf # S # (CIO) E -> [(C-Eif relative~Flex~(Pos) I |Ger ( (011) Nmz -> Sufn~Flex~(Pos)"(Z>i/) (012) PredP -> VP~AvP (013) VP V~j(PI?~]SrP~(Pas))~NPÌ~(Md)~PrepP (Predicative J (014) Y Aux~Verb (015) Aux -> (A)~MT~Flex (016) A ->\AM'"Part

- j VOI I"Inf~(FI~ [Partì )î \AS j \Gerj (017) Verb -> (Eefl)~vb^(Aug)"sv^(Prep) (018) Pas -+DE CÄTRE~[Fr?a,vt\ ¡Eefl j

78

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

(C19) Md -> ( ( O E i f m d ~ ( P r e p f iE ~#S# - EH TE flnf Ger P # S # [PE~Part~-E (020) PrepP -> P r e p ' X P (C21) Predicative -> A j ~ F l e x ~ ( N P )

As compared to Chapter I, the rules here listed reveal the following : Schemes 010 and 019 abbreviate, among other things, rules the expanding of which comprises a single symbol. They mark points at which further refinements turn out to be necessary. As symbols rewritten in 02, 04 and 018, the symbols Coord, Pro and Pas ensure the generating of the elements Oonj, Correl, pronoun, Flex, DE CAT RE " b y " , Fi " b e " , Part, Refl. Perhaps attaining these elements through transformations would have represented a preferable solution to the extent in which (a) it would have allowed a more general formulation of the phrase structure rules and (b) the semantic information + Coordination, + P r o , + Passive would have been present in the deep structure owing to the semantic representations corresponding to Coord, Pro and Pas. Eules 0 2, C 4, C11, C 16, 017 are mainly morphological to the extent in which they favor the generating of formative strings with an ordering deliberately as close as possible to the Eomanian words. A series of symbols defined by Weinreich as A have in our study the status of O, closed classes A frequently resulting from incorporations like:0+0+0^A. Consequently, besides syntactic features like [[Prep]], we also operate with syntactic features like [ [ I N T + Say]], [ [ K E G -+- Say]], [[TXT + K E G + Sav]], [ [ ( A P F ) I N F -f- Sav]], etc. The parentheses ( ) mark the option exclusively in the context When followed (without pause) by a symbol, the parentheses mark the expansion of the respective symbol. Therefore ( W ) N P means " W dominated by KP". In expanding the schemes, the order of the rules is indicated by Eoman numerals. To signal out simultaneousness, — more exactly the cases in which in conformity with the conventions enumerated in Chapter I, the

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

scheme does not indicate order — we have used letters. For in the case of the rules :

79

example,

(I)

II

(a) (b) (c)

(III) I, II, and I I I show order relationships, whereas I l a , l i b and l i e do not. Both in the rules and in the examples we abbreviate by italic capital letters subcategorization processes supposed to end in isolating the corresponding formatives. Therefore BE corresponds to a string of subcategorization rules for Prep, the successive application of which results in isolating the lexicon item de, OM abbreviates a string of subcategorization rules for N, the successive application of which results in isolating the lexicon item om, and so on. In order to make clear the structure of the Romanian examples given throughout the book, a word-for-word translation has been used when rendering them into English — they will frequently sound strange to a native speaker of English. When translating the strings marked with italic capital letters we have deliberately overlooked matters of grammatical agreement, and the like, in order to underline the fact that these strings do not represent performance facts, but stand for conventional abbreviations of deep structure. As a rule sequences abnormal in Romanian (marked by asterisk) have not been translated into English. W e have analysed in the light of transformational theory the results obtained in the frame of traditional and structural grammar — from this point of view our research has a mediated character. The motivation lies in the fact that the main innovation of our approach consists not so much in the concrete, morphematic way of defining the paradigms or the syntactic functions — although sometimes we did bring forward new interpretations — but first and foremost in the way we have rearranged generally known facts into a new hierarchy by drawing up a syntactic system. In this process we have resorted mostly to studies of a general character devoted to morphology or syntax as wholes and less to isolated works treating a particular phenomenon. Older traditional grammars, seldom quoted nowadays proved quite often to suggest interesting approaches to facts. The work is situated on a general level of analysis that constitutes a basis for further refinements. That is why particular structural contri-

80

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

butions (and we regret the absence of an all-comprising volume) were of interest to us mainly in view of the theoretical interpretations put forward in them, and less through their descriptive aspect. To the extent in which structural descriptions contributed to reveal the heterogeneous character of certain traditional classes and the inadequacy of certain unanimously accepted viewpoints, the structural sources used by us will be pointed out where relevant. The integral incorporation of such researches remains a desideratum to be taken into consideration in a future phase. Our own linguistic intuition and the transformational theory were confronted not only with works of traditional or structural grammar, but also with a corpus of real enunciations — whenever the mentioned works did not supply sufficient data. In such cases we did not confine ourselves to the standard variant of Romanian. Partly aberrant forms specific of the spoken language or of popular speech such as the ellipsis, the anacoluthia, certain so-called "wrong" constructions and archaic forms have suggested us interpretations and unifications that could not be overlooked. However, on the level of generality mentioned before the standard variant is entitled to rank first. Nevertheless we do not consider that the formulation of the syntactic component is useful exclusively and integrally for the standard variant. As we shall point out in due course, a series of rules prove to be useful for the generation through rewriting or transformations of certain marked stylistical forms. In other cases forms of the standard language cannot be obtained at the present stage of elaboration of the theory and the grammar is to be carried forward by confronting it with linguistic reality, by bringing about the necessary modifications and refinements. To our opinion the opposition simple-neuter forms /' complicated-expressive forms is not adequate, as we sometimes came across neuter aspects the generating of which encounters more complications than the generating of certain expressive aspects. In order to avoid difficulties in understanding, we tried to adapt the form of the symbols to the more familiar grammatical terminology. However, for the proper interpretation of each symbol one has to keep in mind the specific acceptation defined by us whenever a term is used for the first time, and the fact that often enough it has only a similar meaning, but is not identical with the corresponding term circulating in non-transformationalist literature. When felt necessary, new symbols have been introduced — with no equivalent in traditional grammars or in the transformational grammars that served us as model. In other instances we made use of symbols launched in transformational works devoted to other languages — to the

II. PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES

81

extent, of course, in which these symbols proved adequate to the reality of Romanian syntax. We have insisted on them at each occurrence. We cannot put forward definitive conclusions about the general importance some of the symbols or rules formulated by us have for the transformational theory, but we think that the discussions devoted to the respective symbols and rules may constitute a first step in this direction. We should like to hint at such questions as : the relation of heterogeneous classes of traditional grammar to transformations, the traditional concepts of "syntactic function" and "morphologic value" in the light of the transformational approach, the detection of orientation in the case of reversible syntactic phenomena, etc.

§ 7. SCHEME CI

# S # ^ l # S #~Coord~# S #1 ( SAV~Pro~Nucleus J where S ( = sentence) O, Coord ( = c o o r d i n a t i o n ) A , SAY ( = sentence a d v e r b i a l A , Pro ( = substitute) -> O, and Nucleus -> O . The scheme CI abbreviates the following rules : CI (I) S -> # S # ~ C o o r d ~ # S # (II) S -> SAV^Pro'Nucleus The symbols # mark the phonological boundaries of the sentence. Since the present grammar sets the aim of generating only sentences — and not texts — a well formed surface structure cannot include but marginal # -s. Therefore, the aberrant occurrences of medial # -s (as in the expansions of CI (I)) will have to be filtered out through transformations. Since the present syntax sets the aim of generating only nonelliptical sentences, the occurrence of a single symbol # — either exclusively on the right, or exclusively on the left of an expansion — is excluded. In the sequence •# S # to be rewritten, there are two dependent phonological symbols (the two # -s) and one independent syntactic symbol (S). 1

6

-

T i k t i n ( 1 9 4 5 ) , p. 195 u s e d t h e t e r m adverbial c. 168

propozifional.

82

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

The two # -s are dependent inasmuch as they are not "rewritable" in the frame of the syntactic generative rules. S is independent inasmuch as it is rewritable in terms of other syntactic categories. It is the dependent # -s that are to be considered the absolute initial and the absolute final symbol of the grammar, respectively. The independent symbol S is the initial symbol of the syntactic component of the grammar. Cl(I) is a recursive rule. Theoretically, no limits of its recursiveness may be established. However, such limits exist in common performance and could form the object of statistical and stylistical research. The symbol Coord is rewritten through 02. Eule Cl(II) rewrites # S # through the concatenation of the obligatory symbols SAY, Pro, and Nucleus. The symbols SAY, Pro, and Nucleus will be rewritten in 03, 04, and 05, respectively. Nucleus is an "island category". It signals an area of strong syntactic cohesion, important in dealing with matters of subcategorization and agreement. We shall not approach in detail the relations existing between SAV and Nucleus, and between Pro and Nucleus. However, let us mention that the occurrence of S in SAV is not accidental inasmuch as it signals the hypersentential nature of the island category SAY.

§ 8. RULE C2

Coord -> Conj~Correl where Conj (— conjunction) A, and Correl ( = correlative) -> A. Eule 02 has to be preceded by 01(1). In the model we suggest any enunciation formed by coordination implies, for the junction of two sentences Sx and S 2 , both a coordinating conjunction and its correlative 2 : # S t #~Conj~Correl~# S 2 # 2

In Cipariu ( 1 8 7 7 ) , p. 2 6 7 w e f i n d a c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e pairs of c o n j u n c t i o n s ( c o n j u n c t i i

parechie)

: au-au,

ori-ori,

seau-seau,

si-si,

assia-precum.

II. PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES

83

Conj and Correl can refer to phonologically identical formatives as in the case of the conjunctions sii "and", nici1 "neither", sau1 "either", oril "either", fiel "either" and their respective correlatives si., "as well" (the adverbial §i in Gramatica (1963)), nici2 " n o r " (the adverbial nici in Gramatica. (1963)), sau2 " o r " , fie2 " o r " : Si Ion citeste si Oheorghe citeste "(And) John is reading, and George too is reading", Nici el n-a venit, nici ea n-a venit "Neither he did come, nor she did come", Sau tu ai dreptate, sau eu am, dreptate "Either you are right, or I am right". The phonological identity of Conj with Correl allows the optional deletion of one of them : Ion citeste si Gheorghe citeste "John is reading and George is reading", El n-a venit, nici ea n-a venit " H e did not come, neither she did come", Tu ai dreptate sau eu am, dreptate " Y o u are right or I am right". Such abbreviated surface structures oppose as neutral to the ones given above, which we perceive as emphatic. Conj and Correl can refer to phonologically distinct formatives as in the case of daca " i f " and its correlative atunci "then", or to more complicated structures incorporating a Negation such as : si de, desi, chiar daca j "although, for all that, [ . . . notwithstanding this" j 0 ... all of ture .

which

(totusi, cu toate acestea) "yet, still, however, I (nevertheless" j {dar, iar, tnsa, ci "but, and"}

are underlain by a negated

DACA~ATUiiCI

struc-

The alternative deletion of one of the above formatives is equally possible. To the emphatic surface stiuctures Daca invafa, atunci stie " I f he learns then he knows", Desi invata, totusi nu stie "Although he learns, nevertheless he does not know", one can thus adjoin the neutral surface structures Daca, invata, stie " I f he learns, he knows", Desi invafd, nu stie "Although he learns, he does not know" or Invafa, atunci stie " H e learns, then he knows", Invata, totusi nu stie " H e learns, nevertheless he does not know". Rule C2 does not allow t he generation of such emphatic colloquial constructions as: El invata, dar insa nu stie " H e learns but though he does not know". I n case both Conj and Correl are expressed in the surface structure, a repositioning transformation will have to be applied to the sequence # S # ~ C o n j ~ C o r r e P # S # in order to get the normal sequence Conj~# S # ~ C o r r e l ~ # S

84

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

§ 9. SCHEME C3

SAY -> where INT ifEG -> Sav ( =

(IKTHNEGOrSav O, O , and sentence adverb) -> O.

The scheme above abbreviates the following rules : 03 (I) SAV -> I N T ~ N E G ~ S a v (II) SAV - ^ N E G ~ S a v (III) SAY

INT~Sav

The parentheses embracing NEG are indexed in such a way as to exclude a simultaneous taking into consideration of the two options. Therefore an expansion confined to Sav for SAV is ruled out. This is necessary because Sav is a O symbol to which no phonological representation is associated in the Lexicon. In order for Sav to be lexicalized, it has to participate in incorporations such a s : INT + Sav -> A if EG + Sav A INT + N E G + Sav -> A A deeper deep structure would include instead of SAV the symbol Hypersentence to which we have alluded in discussing 01 and which would require a different expanding. By Hypersentence we mean a sentence consisting of Personal NTs plus a performative verb. The Nucleus would be the Object (in a Fillmorean sense) of the hypersentential performative verb. One can have, for example, in the case of a belief hypersentence the following actualizations : — Cred ea Ion e vinovat "I believe that John is guilty" where both the hypersentence and the Nucleus are surfaced : (CBEDE)Hypersentence ~(ION~F/~VINOVAT)Nucleus, — Poate ca Ion e vinovat, Poate e vinovat Ion "Maybe John is guilty" where the sentential adverb poate incorporates the feature + Belief from the deleted hypersentence : ((Poate)Sav)H.ypersentence~(ION~iT ~VINOVAT)Nucleus, — Ion o fi vinovat "John might be guilty" where the presumptive

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

85

mood and the tense of the verb in the Nucleus (MT in our symbolization, cf. 015) incorporate -[-Belief : CEBDE + P I o fi. The constructions listed above are increasingly complicated with respect to the number of transformations involved in their derivational history. The first does not involve ad-hoc transformations (except for those concerning the agreement between the nature of the hypersentential verb and the MT of the verb in Nucleus). The second is obtained through lexical transformations abbreviating the whole hypersentence through adverbs such as poate "maybe", parca "perhaps", probabil "probably, possibly", pesemne "seemingly" for -fBelief, desigur, fireste de buna seama "of course, indeed", cu siguranfa "to be sure", precis "precisely", intr-adevar "in truth" for -f Assertion, etc. The third presupposes a 'stronger'-type transformation inasmuch as, this time, in order for the deletion of the hypersentence to be recoverable, it is the MT of the Verb in the Nucleus which is affected. Therefore, the transformation outpasses the limits of the two syntactic islands (Hypersentence and Nucleus). Although the third construction is the shortest, apparently most simple form, it is thus syntactically the most expensive. A grammar that would not deal with more than one level would fail to account for this fact. In Romanian usage, it is the first case, with the simplest derivational history, which is most emphatic and the last one with the most complicated derivational history, which is less emphatic. Accordingly, one could define Emphasis in terms of the deletion transformations involved in getting to the surface-actualization of a sentence. The fewer and less consistent the deletions, the more emphatic the surface realization. This would explain why an emphatic structure allows the easiest semantic interpretation. No 'transformational mask' was apposed to the transparent base-structure. The less expensive syntactically, the more emphatic, seems to be a general principle which will be illustrated more than once in the following paragraphs. The phrase structure rules thus generate an emphatic base structure which, in some of the cases, can be surface-realized. The filtering role of the transformations is not only one of separating the realized structures from the possible ones, but also one of de-emphasizing the base structure. Therefore, a stylistic supplementation of the grammar is not always the best solution. It is easier to imagine a base component that is stylistically relevant also and to conceive the transformations as a way of normalizing the deep structure not only with respect to the opposition correct/

86

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL

S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

not correct, but also with respect to the opposition stylistically unmarked, standard / stylistically marked, special. The emotive, stylistically marked children language or peasant language are easier to explain through intermediate stages between the base structure and the surface structure. The reading of the symbol INT might be roughly paraphrased as : "more information is expected about the incorporating formative" 3. In the context of 03 the supplementary information expected is the ¿Assertion (and, if —Assertion, ¿Belief, etc.) character of the verb in the hypersentence. Phonologically, the incorporation of the symbol INT is marked by a specific rising intonation if the domain of the interrogation is represented by the ¿Assertion character of the hypersentential verb (see chapter, III, § 35). No intonation marks the interrogation concerning the ¿Belief character of the hypersentential verb. Lexically, the incorporation : INT + Sav -> A results in : — the formative oare (expressing doubt and interrogation) if the interrogation concerns the ¿Assertion character of the hypersentential verb, without any expectation on the speaker's side who is uttering the total interrogation : Oare vine astazi? "Is he (she) coming today?", — the formatives oare, au (archaic) followed by nu "no, not" if the interrogation concerns the ¿Assertion character of the hypersentential verb with a ¿Assertion expectation on the speaker's side who is uttering the total interrogation: Oare nu vine astazi? "Isn't he (she) coming today?", equivalent to such "overt" forms as : Nu-i asacavine astazi? Asa-i ca vine astazif "Isn't it so that he will come today?" — the formative cumva, if the interrogation concerns the ¿Belief character of the hypersentential verb with no expectation on the speaker's side who is uttering the total interrogation : Vine cumva astazi ? "Might he come today?" — the formative cumva preceded by nu if the interrogation concerns the ¿Belief character of the hypersentential verb with a ¿Belief expectation on the speaker's side who is uttering the total interrogation : Nu cumva vine astazi? "Might he not come today?", equivalent to Poate vine astazi, nu-i asa? "He might come today, isn't it so?" 3

This differs a little from Katz-Postal (1964), p. 87 and following.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

87

— both oare and cumva if the interrogation concerns a complex hypersentential structure in which both a ¿Assertion and a ¿Belief choice are implied, with no expectation on the speaker's side who is uttering the total interrogation : Oare vine cumva ast&zi? "Maybe he will come today, isn't that so?", roughly equivalent to Zici ca poate vine astazi? "You say that he might come today? Do you assert that you believe that . . . " . — both oare and cumva followed respectively preceded by nu if the interrogation concerns a complex hypersentential structure in which both a ¿Assertion and a ¿Belief choice are implied with a ¿Assertion and ¿Belief expectation on the speaker's side who is uttering the total interrogation : Oare nu cumva vine astazi f , equivalent to Nu-i asa ca probabil vine astazif "Isn't it so that, probably, he will come today?". In contemporary spoken Romanian an optional deletion usually eliminates the oare or au formatives whose absence is recoverable due to the interrogative intonation. Cumva, nu cumva have to be surface realized inasmuch as they furnish special, unrecoverable information. We do not insist on the special incorporation CA "that" ¿ I N T ~ S a v ~ N u c l e u s (where INT~ Sav~Nucleus > Sx > S ) which results in daca, de: a intrebat "he (she) asked" ~CA ¿INT~'®tne astazi is surfaced a intrebat daca (de) vine astazi "he (she) asked whether he (she) would come today". The reading of the symbol N E G is, roughly, " ¿Affirmation verb in the hypersentence denied" and, as such, N E G is always implied by an INT questioning the ¿Affirmation character of the hypersentential verb. That is to say that a total negation ( = a sentence where SAY dominates NEG) has always more or less the character of a reply. In order to refine the analysis, one would have to introduce, on the same level with NEG, the symbol A F F meaning roughly : "¿Assertion verb in the hypersentence affirmed". N E G and A F F would then represent possible expansions of both a CONF ( = confirmation) and an INF (== infirmation) symbol. One would then have the following possible incorporations : (NEG)CONF ¿ Sav A corresponding to such [[(NEG)CONF ¿ Sav]] formatives as nicidecum, nicidecit, citusi de pufin, de loc, de fel "not at all' (as opposed to (KEG) SAV ¿ Sav which results in nu), (AFF)CONF + Sav -> A corresponding to such [[(AFF)CONF ¿ Sav]] formatives as desigur, fireste, de buna seama "of course, indeed", cu siguranfa "to be sure", precis "precisely", intr-adevar "in truth", regional dar, dara "so it is",

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

88

exact "exactly", intocmai "exactly", adevarat "truly", nici vorba, nici discufie "without saying", "not in the least", fara doar si poate "no doubt", ba bine ca nu "as likely as not", fara mdoiala "no doubt", etc. (as opposed to (AFF)SAV + Sav, which results in da "yes", (NEG)INF + Sav -> A corresponding to such [[(NEG)INF + Sav]] formatives as ba (nu), (AFF)I]SrF + Say -> A corresponding to such [ [ ( A F F ) I N F + Sav]] formatives as ba (da).

§ 10. RULE C4 Pro ->• pronoun~Flex where Flex ( = Inflection) -> O, and pronoun A. Pro appears not only in the expansion of # S # (CI), but also in the expansion of the symbol Nominal (C8). Applying rule C4 is therefore possible both after CI and C8. From all the formatives that are defined as [[pronoun]], such as : acesta, aceasta, acestia, acestea; asta, asta, a§tia, astea "this one, these ones, formal and informal", acela, aceea, aceia, acelea; aia, aia, aia, alea(dlea) "that one, those ones, formal and informal", unul, una, unit, unele "the one, the ones", altul, alta, alfii, altele "the other, the others", cineva "someone, somebody", ceva "something", careva "someone, anyone", el, ea, ei, ele; dinsul, dinsa, dimii, dinsele "he, she, they, informal and formal", dumnealui, dumneaei, dumnealor ; dumneasa, domnia sa, domniile lor "reverential he, she, they, informal and formal", etc., a special subcategorization rule will be needed to separate those formatives that may occur in the context Nucleus : [[[pronoun]]J-> i f

Nucleus]

In C8 we define the context N m z ~ # S # as a special case of the Nucleus context (that is, . . . Nucleus). The —[..Nucleus)] pronouns will occur in the context ....N (see 08). The + [ Nucleus] pronouns are characterized by the semantic feature +Indef : asta, aceasta, aia, aceea, una, alta4 (grammatically signalled through —Masculine Flex). 4

Cipariu ( 1 8 7 7 ) discusseci this aspect. Cf.

Cipariu

(1877),

p. 5 9 : In ceea ce

e urit,

the

feminine ceea is " p u s u neutraliter in subiectu, m a c a r u e feminin, si c o n c o r d a t u cu adiectivulu p r e d i c a t u nu in genulu fem. alu subiectului, ci in n e u t r u , pr. amu vediutu

unu corbu albu,

ceea

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E RULES

89

We express this fact through the subcategorization rule : [ Nucleus] +Indef I n adverbial phrases of cause or finality such as : de aceea, de aia, de-aia "for this (reason)" ; pentrn aceea, pentru aia "for t h a t (reason)" ; de asta, de-asta, pentru asta "for this reason", the +Indef pronouns refer to a pronominalized Nucleus.

§ 11. SCHEME C5

Nucleus (Impers)~NP~PredP where Impers ( = impersonalization) -> O N P ( = noun phrase) O , and P r e d P ( = predicative phrase) O. Scheme 05 abbreviates the rules : 05 (I) Nucleus -> Impers~NP~PredI J , and (II) Nucleus -> N P ' P r e d P . According to 05 a deep structure S is always two-member. The surface mono-member sentences are transforms underlain by a two-member base from which either N P or P r e d P have been deleted. A. N P is deleted when it receives the semantic interpretation -(-Indef 5 : (a) ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ B A T E LA U§A "knock at the door" => Bate la u§a "(Somebody) knocks at the door", ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ S P U N E LA R A D I O " s a y on the radio" => Spune la radio "(They) say on the radio", (b) ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ D U E E A E U " h u r t I " => Ma doare "(It) hurts m e " , ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ M I R O S I " s m e l l " ~ P l l N E C A L D l "of hot b r e a d " => Miroase a piine calda (There's smell of hot bread), ( + I n d e f ) N P ce e raru pre la noi" ; idem, p. 59 — 60 : "Inse si in atari propusetiuni concordatiunea nu e neregulata, fiendu ca predicalulu intr'inse se concorda cu unu nume neutru subintielesu : lucru ca si candu ai dice : ceea ce c lucru raru, — lucru forte fromosu . . . " ; idem, p. 170 : " D e multe ori inse ele (the demonstrative pronouns) se punu in propusetiune fora sustantive, inca si fora relatiune la vre unu nume, si asia dicundu neutraliter, — inse nu in forma neutrale, ci feminina, pr. acest'a e ca — aceea se dicc, ceca ce se scie; er' predicatul arare ori se concorda cu acestu subiectu in genere, ci in forma neutra pr. acest'a e fromosu de la tene etc. unde in predicatu se subintielege lucru, cu care se concorda virtualiter, er' nu cu demustrativulu femininu" ; idem, p. 171 : "Esceptiunile dela acestu usu suntu rare ; inse cu bunu-a, de regula se pune adverbiulu bene ca adiectivu, seau si buna in femininu pr. aceea e bene, seau aceea e buna ; er' nece de cumu : aceea 5

e

bunu".

Cf., for the examples, Gabriela Pana Dindelegan (1970a).

90

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

TRECE MIEZUL N O P T I I "go over midnight" => A trecut de miezul nopjii "It's past midnight", (c) (+Indef)NT~AMURGI "grow dark" => Amurge$te "(It) grows dark", ( +Indef)NP~BUBUI "rumble" => Bubuie "(It) rumbles", ( + Indef)iTP~BURA "drizzle" => Bureaza "(It) drizzles", ( +Indef)NP~BURISTITA "mizzle" => Burnifeazd "(It) mizzles", (+Indef)NI > ~CERN'E "sprinkle"" AFAR A "outside" => Afard cerae" (It) sprinkles outside", ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ F U L G E R A "lighten" => Fulgera "(It) lightens", ( + Indef)N"P~GERUI => Geruieste "(It) freezes", ( +Indef)N*P~:N'i:N'GE "snow" => Hinge "(It) snows", ( + Indef)iTP~PLOUA "to rain" => Ploua "(it) rains", ( + Indef)KP~TURN"A OU G l L E A T A "to pour with the bucket => Toarna cu gdleata (It rains cats and digs), ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ T R l Z i t t " t o thunderbolt" (to hurl thunderbolts) => Trdzneste "(It) thunderbolts", ( + Indef)iiP~TUJsTA "to thunder" => Tuna "(It) thunders", (+Indef)ITP~YISCOLI "to blizzard" => Viscoleste "(It) blizzards", ( + Indef)NP~VREMUI "to break u p " (about weather) => Vremuieste "The weather breaks up", etc. Notice that in all of (a) —(c) examples the Lexicon reading of the verb provides supplementary information with respect to the -flndef NP. In (a), due to the fact that bate, spune are + [ ( H u m a n ) N P ] verbs N P is -flndef -{-Human In (b), due to the fact that durea, mirosi, trece de miezul nopjii are, respectively defined by the selective restrictions parte a corpului "part of aer, vazduh "air" , timp "time". , N P consists of the the body" Lexicon readings for parte a corpului, aer, timp, to which the feature +Indef is added. In (c), due to the fact that amurgi, bubui, bura are defined as + [(aV)N"P..._] in other words as cognate-subject verbs, NP consists of ( + Indef)AMURG, ( + Indef)BUBUlT, ( + I n d e f ) B U R A . The deletion of N P represents one of the possible transformational filters which could be applied to the structures above. One could equally well imagine the lexicalization of +Indef +Human as U" or Pro respectively : 0 persoana bate la usa "A person is knocking at the door", Gineva (careva) bate la usa "Somebody is knocking at the door". The lexicalization in (b) and (c) is always accomplished in terms of an N formative only : Ma doare o parte a corpului "A part of my body hurts me", Aerul miroase a piine caldti, "The air smells (bears the smell) of hot bread", Timpul a trecut de miezul nopfii "Time went over midnight" (It

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

91

is past midnight). Bura bureaza "The drizzle drizzles", Zapada ninge "The snow snows", etc. The deletion or lexicalization of a +Indef N P can follow passivization : Pas ( + IndefJNP^CITI "read"~( + Indef)]SrP2 (where N P t =h NP 2 ) => Del ( + I n d e f ) N P . r S i T C I T I ~ R 0 GATRE~( +Indef)NP 1 => ( +Indef)NP~SE~ Del CITI=> &ETCITI ( = Se cite$te "One reads"), or, to take another examPas pie: ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ N U M I "call, name"~EU " I " ~ I O N "John" => M l Del NITMI I O N BE GATBE~( +Indef)NP => M l N U M I I O N ( = Ma numesc Ion "(They) call me John"). B. N T is deleted when it precedes such +Subject NP-Deletion verbs as : imi pasa de (I care for), imi pare bine de " ( I t ) seems well to myself" ( I am glad), imi arde de (I am afire with a desire to). Prom : NP~PlREA BINE'DiTNP, N P ~ P l S A ~ D . i r N P , and n p ~ a b d e ~ / ) j T n p

one thus gets : PlEEA BINE'DiTNP, P l S A ' D i T N P , and AEDE'DiTNP avoiding such incorrect surface structures as : *Eu imi pare bine de ceva, *Ion u pasa de ceva, *El nu-i arde de scoala N P is replaced by se when preceded by Impers : Impers~NP~PLECA M I I N E "leave tomorrow" => se pleaca miine "one leaves tomorrow" (departure tomorrow), Impers~NP~MlNCA L A C A B A N l "eat at the chalet" => Se maninca la cabana "One eats at the chalet", Impers~NP~ZICE I O N "tell John"~MIE "to me" => mi se zice Ion (People call me John). PredP is deleted when it receives the semantic interpretation -(-Existential : ( C E A T l "Fog", F E I G "cold", P L I C T I S "boredom" )NP~ ( +Existential)PredP => Ceafa, Frig, Plictis. When the nouns contain the semantic feature -fTime, e.g. : Buminica "Sunday", Luni "Monday", Toamna "Autumn", Noapte "Night", such examples as the first two are ambiguous leading both to the deep structure (a) ( D U M l N l C l , LUNl)NP~(existential verb)PredP, and (b) 6 Cf., for the examples and a somewhat different interpretation Gabriela Pana Dindelegan (1970a).

92

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

( -flndef) NP~(existential v e r b ) P r e d P ~ ( D U M I N I C l LUNI)AvP. According to Fillmore, one would select (b) as a deeper deep structure, (a) being a way of attributing a subject role to a Time case.

§ 12. SCHEME C6 NP (Det)~Nominal~Art~(Rel)~((I)ii~Inf)"Conj~#S#) ( !, where Det ( = determinative) - > 0 , Nominal O, Art ( = definite article) -> A, E e l = (relativization) -> O , and Inf ( = infinitive)^A0 6 abbreviates the following rules: C6 (I) NP Det"Nominal"Art~Rel~.i>.E~Inf"Conj"# S # (II) (a) U P - > Nominal" Art~Rer\D_Z!7~Inf~Conj"# S # (b) NP -> D e t " N o m i n a l " A r t " D . E r i n f " C o n j " # S # (c) NP Det~Nominal"Art~Rel~Cor)j"# S # (d) NP Nominal" Art"Z).Z?"lnf"Conj~# S # (e) NP Nominal"Art"Rel"Conj"# S # (f) NP -> D e t ~ N o m i n a l ~ A r t " C o n j " # S # (g) NP -> N o m i n a l " A r t " C o n j " # S # (h) NP -> Det"Nominal"Art~Rel (i) NP -> Nominal" A r t " R e l (j) NP Det~Nominal"Art (III) NP Nominal"Art They thus ensure the generation of a simple noun phrase (III), or of a complex one — consisting in the nominal and the determinative ( I l j ) , a nominal and an attributive clause introduced by conjunction (Hh), a nominal, a determinative, and an attributive clause introduced by conjunction (Ilf), a nominal and a verbal attribute expressed by an infinitive (lid), a nominal, a determinative, and a verbal attribute expressed by an infinitive (lib) 7 , a nominal and a relative attributive clause (Hi), a deter' In the Grammar of P o r t - R o y a l infinitival constructions are treated as verbal system equivalents of the relative clauses existing in the nominal system : " . . . l'infinitif est entre les autres manières du Verbe, ce qu'est le Relatif entre les autres p r o n o m s " (p. 111 —112) and " . . . l'infinitif a par-dessus l'affirmation

(underlined by us, see our C3 discussion above) du

Verbe ce pouvoir de joindre la proposition où il est à une a u t r e " (p. 112). Quoted after Chomsky (1966),

p.

39.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

93

urinative, a nominal, and a relative attributive clause (Ilg), a nominal preceded or not by a determinative, and followed in either case by an attributive clause introduced by Conj and by a Eel attributive clause, and finally a nominal preceded or not by a determinative and followed by the verbal attribute expressed through an infinitive and a relative clause. The symbols Nominal and Art appear in all the expansions. They represent the minimal expansion of the symbol NT. Consequently, a transformation deleting Art will be necessary for obtaining surface structures in which usage asks for the non-articulated occurrence of the Nominal. To the minimal expansion one may add in any combination the optional symbols Det (see 07), Eel (see C9) and the sequence of symbols DE~Inf~ Conj~# S # . The symbol Conj will be rewritten — in the context Nominal"Art by formatives like : ca, sa, ca sa "that, so that", daca, de "if, whether". E.g. : gindul ca va intirzia "the thought that he would be late", intrebarea daca sa mai vina "the question whether he should come any more", ideea ca toata lumea sa danseze "the idea that everybody should dance", etc. The sequence D.E~Inf signals the local transformation as a consequence of which the Predicative Phrase of a sentence turns into an infinitive preceded by preposition DE : gindul de a intirzia "the thought to be late", ideea de a dansa "the idea of dancing", etc. Enunciations containing the symbol TNT do not allow of such a transformation. One can get intrebarea daca sa mai vina, but * intrebarea de a mai veni "the question to come any more" is not acceptable in Romanian.

§ 13. SCHEME C7

Det ~> (Neg)~(Int)~determinative~Flex where Neg ( = negation) -> O , Int ( = interrogation) -> O , and determinative -> A. C7 abbreviates the following rules : 07 (I) Det -> Neg~Int~determinative~Flex (II) (a) Det Int~determinative~Flex (b) Det -> Neg~determinative~Flex (III) Det ->- determinative~Flex

94

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

The obligatory symbol determinative together with the obligatory symbol Flex constitute the minimal expansion Det. The optional character of the sequence determinative Flex is stated in C6 where the symbol Det is placed between ( ). The symbol determinative corresponds to all modifiers that are not admitted as Predicative and, therefore, cannot be generated by transformations deleting the copula (as we shall see further on, whenever there is in the surface structure an adjectival modifier, a participial modifier, a modifier expressed by a Nominal in the genitive or a PrepP, the deep structure consists of a copula plus Predicative 8 ). We implicitly eliminate the possibility of generating on the level of deep structure such sequences as those underlying: (1) Lapte(le) este pujin " T h e milk is l i t t l e " , (2) Gopii(i) sint doi " T h e children a r e t w o " ,

(3) Laptele este tot "The milk is all", a.s.o. which are to be obtained exclusively through transformations. The determinative formatives tot "all", aide "such as", mult "much", pufin "little", un "a", niste "some", niscaiva "some", unu "one", dot "two", trei "three", amindoi, ambii "both", tustrei "all three of them", insu§i "himself", insumi "myself", tnsufi "yourself", cutare "a certain", etc. can be subcategorized according to the Nominal expansions in 08. These are : K" Personal . . . . [ [determinative]] Nmz*# S 4 t . . . characterizes the formatives A representation like tot, aide, mult, pufin, tustrei, etc.

un, niste,

vreun,

unu,

doi,

trei,

amindoi,

ambii,

A more refined analysis would probably decompose the formatives amindoi,

ambii, tustrei into T0T1

+DOI,

TREI

" a l l + two, t h r e e " i m p o s i n g

the introduction of a reflexive rule of the type : determinative -» determinative'determinative and would formulate selection rules such as : ± _(Human)N [ [determinative]] ensuring thus the isolation of aide, cutare "so and so, such and such", which appear only beside nouns referring to persons (in the case of aide 8

In the Grammar of Port-Royal the apposition, the adjective, the participle are interpreted

through base structures containing a relative.

II. PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES

95

the partition could take into account the obligativity of the feature +Proper in the next noun). A series of lexical suffixes, such as the diminutives -ie(a), -uc(d), -if(d), -uf(a), -ea, -el, etc., the augmentatives -oi, -an, etc. could also be characterized as[ [[determinative]] .

+[•

X I

Such a representation would impose a local repositioning transformation that would move the suffix from the position _ iT to the position and a morphophonemic selection rule in order to make specific — for each case in part and depending on the class of N — the option for one of the suffixes having an identical -{-Diminutive, or -(-Augmentative reading. This would account for the fact that not all of the diminutive (augmentative) suffixes are tolerated beside the same N. For example one can get from fat(d) "girl" the diminutive nouns fet(ica), fat(uca), fet(ifa), fdt(ufd), all of them meaning "little girl", but one can form from cas(d) "house" only the diminutive nouns cas(uca), cas(ufa) "little house", the forms *cas(ica), *cas(ifa) being not admitted by Romanian usage. [ [determinative] ] The formatives insumi, ins 1419, defined as +[ Personal] could be split into the sequences chiar + eu, tu "even - f I , you". In this case they would no more represent determinatives to be listed in the Lexicon, but the outcome of a lexical transformation incorporating certain Personal and md formatives (for md, see C19). Therefore eu insumi " I myself", tu insufi "you yourself", etc. would be underlined by such redundant sequences as EU "V^CHIAR + EU "even + I " , TU "you'^CHlAR -f- TU "even + you", where the doubled EU, TU account for the emphatic character of the construction. Finally, since we do not conceive as possible the occurrence of a sequence : determinative'. . . ifmz~ # S # in the surface structure and since it is generated by our system of rules, one would either envisage (a) the introduction of a transformation deleting the symbol determinative in the context N m z ~ # S # , or (b) a more "radical" solution consisting in moving the symbol determinative from under the domination of K T to the exclusive domination of Nominal. The introduction of the symbol Flex into the context determinative , is likely to ensure the selection of the inflectional endings : -u, -i, -e, -(ur)or, in the case of tot, mult; -ui, -or in the case of un ; -e, -or in the case of doi ; 9

T i k t i n (1945), p. 73 discusses the f a c t that

is not tolerated in the context Personal.

Insusi

occurs beside nouns or P r o f o r m a t i v e s and

96

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

-it, -a, -i in the case of -io-, -uc-, -if-, -uf-, -oi-, -an-, a.s.o. The specific option adequate to each position occupied by the respective formatives within the expansion may be attained by subcategorizing the complex symbol Flex (see § 29). The symbol Neg is rewritten through the formative nu "no, not". Its occurrence in expansion ( l i b ) ensures the generation of such partial negations as nu un "not a " , nu trei "not three", nu tofi "not all", nu pufin "not a little", in which the position is occupied by a Nominal generated through C8. A special case is constituted by such sequences as nici tin, nici o "not a " (masculine, feminine) which seem to be different from nu un, nu una inasmuch as un, o are +Indef, while un, una are -Indef. In case both the determinative and the Nominal contain the feature +Indef, the symbol Neg is incorporated. From a Noun Phrase :

Nominal

determinative |[+ Indef]

[ + Indef]

we thus obtain :

T

Nom iiinal '+ Indef" + Neg and, by eliminating the nonbranching NP we get to : Nominal

+ Indef + Neg

The result of incorporating the feature +Neg corresponds in the conto the reading of nimeni, "nobody", in the text -(-Nominal -(-Index -(-Human

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

context of

-(-Nominal +Indef —Animate

97

to the reading of nimic "nothing", a.s.o.

The symbol Int has exclusively an intonational phonologic correspondent. The semantic feature associated with the interrogative intonation in the Lexicon will be noted as -j-Interrog. The incorporation of Int takes place only when the determinative and the Nominal contain the feature +Indef. Depending on whether the feature -flnterrog is introduced in the -(-Nominal -(-Nominal -(-Nominal -(-Nominal context -flndef +Indef +Indef +Indef -(-Place, +Quantity —Animate -{-Human -fNominal -flndef -j-Time

+Nominal + Indef -(-Manner

the results of the incorporation will be

the readings corresponding to the [ [ I n t + N]] formatives cine "who", ce "what", cit "how much", unde "where", cind "when", cum "how", respectively.

§ 14. SCHEME C8

Nominal

Personal Pro" [N ITFlex '{Nmz~#S#J

where Personal A, N" ( = noun) -» • , and Nmz ( = nominalization) -> O. The scheme sums up the following rules in this order : 08 (I) Nominal Personal~Flex (II) Nominal Pro"N~Flex (III) Nominal -> Pro~Nmz~# S #~Flex ensuring the generation of Nominals consisting in 1st or Ilnd personal

98

T H E TRANSFORMATIONAL, S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

pronouns (== Personal 1C ), primary nouns listed in the Lexicon, nouns resulting from the contraction — the nominalization — of a sentence and not listed in the Lexicon. In contradistinction to Personal expansions, the IS" expansions obligatorily contain a doubling Pro. According to C4 before, Pro is rewritten as pronoun'Flex. In this case it is [ — [ Nucleus]] pronouns that are inserted in the expansion, that is the third person personal pronouns, the demonstrative pronouns, the indefinite pronouns, the courtesy pronouns. The deep structure Pro doubling of 1ST or of I m z ' ^ S i - h underlies such specifically Romanian emphatic constructions as : Vine el lata "Father, he will come", Ti-arata ea matu§a Marioara "Aunt Mary, she will scold you", Dunmealui, lucratorul, unde se afla? "He, the worker, where was he?". In standard speech the doubling Pro is usually deleted through an adhoc transformation. The symbol Flex ensures the adding of the inflectional ending to the formatives underlied by JST, Personal, Nmz. One could introduce a formative Sex in front of the symbol Flex exclusively in the context 1ST_ , that is in the sequence JST~Sex~Flex , in order to account for the motional phenomena. In this case, Sex would dominate a minor class of suffixes to be subcategorized as follows : Sex

-ic-(oai)c-es-o(a)r-toar-oi-

-an-or-tor-

I

I -Male N

\ -fMale N/

According to the derivation C6 —C7 —C8 the following symbols occur in the context 1ST : Det, Art, Eel, C o n j ~ # S # , Pro, Flex, Sex. 10

The peculiar behaviour of the first and second person personal pronouns as compared to

the third person personal pronouns or to the nouns, is discussed by Cipariu (1877), p. 162 who affirms t h a t , paradoxically, it is the nouns that stand for the pronouns in this case : " P r o n u m e l e personali, celu pucinu cele de person'a 1 si 2, intru adeveru nu eie suplenescu numele, ci numele — s'ar potè dice, ca suplenescu scau tienu locu aeeloru pronume ; ceea ce si de acolo se cunosce, ca nu se afla unu nume, de person'a 1, seau a'2, pre cari pronumele acestea le aru supleni, si pentru cabasea tuturoru flesiuniloru personali, de esemplu in verbe, suntu singure acestepronume, er' nu altu n u m e " .

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

99

In order to operate the contextual subcategorization of 1ST we do not take into account the obligatory symbols Art, Pro, Flex that appear in the structure of any Nominal. The following syntactic features will therefore be significant for the strict subcategorization of H" : ¿ [ D e t ], ¿ [ Conj~#S#=], and, in case of considering the symbol Sex, also ¿ [ Sex]. The opposition ¿ [ D e t ]/ —[Det ] reflects the traditional distinction between common nouns that receive such determinatives as un, niçte, doi, etc. and proper nouns that do not accept them. Therefore, in the Lexicon, will have to be traced in the representation of such formatives as lup(u) "wolf", cas(d) "house", veverif(d) "squirrel", etc., and in the representation of formatives like Rad(u),

Olg{a)

Mari(a), Ion(u) etc. It is true that un Nicolai(e) "a Nicholas", o Mari(e) "a Mary" seem to contradict what has been said above and suggest a weakening of the opposition. However, such examples have an evident stylistic value which the present syntax accounts for by that it gives them a deviation status. The opposition ¿ [ _ O o n j ~ # S # ] / — [ C o n j ~ # S # ] permits the partition of common nouns into nouns that may be followed directly by a sentence not containing them, and nouns that do not allow of such a possibility, i.e. : onoarea sd . . . "the honor to . . . " , proiectul sd "the project to . . . " , vestea cd "the news that . . . " , ideea cd "the idea that . . . " ,faptui cd . . . "the fact that . . . " , inipresia ca ... "the impression that . . . " , obsesia cd "the obsession t h a t . . . " , buwria cd "the pleasure t h a t . . . " , nddejdea ca (sa)... "the hope t h a t . . . " , etc., but *masa sd,* copilul cd, *harta cd, *elefantul cd, etc. It is interesting to note that not all nouns that may be followed by Conj~ # S # admit the same conjunction. How we select cd, sa, or ca sa (riscul ca sd . . . "the risk that . . . " ) is to be seen for each case in part and will have to be accounted for by special morphophonemic rules. The symbol N" is convertible into any formative existing in the Lexicon and having the feature ¿ N associated to some inherent semantic features such as : ¿Animate, ¿Animal, ¿Abstract, ¿ H u m a n , etc. In the terms of the above features, 1ST may be expanded as CS : (I) X - + D , +N(II) + N -> ¿Animate (III)

100

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

[

—Animate

(IV) (V)

£ ¿Animal

(VI)

—Animal

(VII) (VIII) (IX)

¿Abstract

j—> -j- Human -j- Plurality

—Abstract ] - * ¿Discrete +Human ¿Plurality —Plurality ¿Human

¿Male

Graphically, these rules may be rendered as in the diagram of p. 101. According to these rules, the reading of mam(a) "mother" will include : , those of the formatives vidr(a) "otter" and lapte ¿Animate ¿Animal ¿Human —Plurality _ —Male _ "milk" will include : f~ ¿N"

~ and ~ ¿ N

"" respectively.

¿Animate —Animate ¿Animal —Abstract —Human _ —Discrete _ —Plurality _ As compared to the features considered by Chomsky as essential for rewriting N as a OS, we have introduced the feature ¿ P l u r a l i t y capable of differentiating the semantic status of such collective nouns as divizie "division", escadron "squadron", companie "company", regiment "regiment", clasâ "class", echipâ "team", brigadâ "brigade", etc. in the context ¿ H u m a n , turmâ "flock", cireadA "herd", stol "bevy", etc. in the context

- Human , pädure "forest", crîng "woods", etc. in the context

-Animal . This feature also justifies the acceptability of constructions

101

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

102

like toatd compania "the whole company", tot regimentul "the whole regiment", toatd clasa "the whole class" (where tot, toatd = "each member of . . . " ) , familie numeroasa "numerous family", companie numeroasd "numerous company", stol numeros "numerous bevy" (where numeros, numeroasd — "with many members"), as compared to Hup numeros "numerous wolf", *toatd foarfeca "the whole scissors" (it is possible to say toatd foarfeca era acoperita de rugind "the scissors were entirely rusted", but in this case we deal with tot, toatd = "the object in its entirety"), *foarfeca numeroasa "numerous scissors" (in Romanian foarfeca is —Plural). In the context ( - f Plural)Flex, —Plurality is always replaced by +Plurality and the following combinations are all possible: toate foarfecile "all the scissors", foarfeci numeroase "numerous scissors", toft lupii "all the wolves", lupi numero§i "numerous wolves", etc.

r

In the context of j > the feature +Plurality could characterize, if ¥ is +Human, the semantic representation of formatives like Pope§ti, Dragomire§ti; together with —Human or with —Animal, the feature -fPlurality might be included in the readings of such scientific terms as celenterate "coelenterata", efemeride "ephemeridae", or graminacee "graminaceae", rozacee "rosaceae", respectively. In the presence of -(-Abstract, it might contribute in the semantic demarcation of terms like dadaism "dadaism", kantianism "kantianisin", platonism "platonism", etc. The symbol Nmz is rewritten in Oil. The symbol Personal corresponds to a minor class of formatives [[Personal]]. Its most important inherent feature is ±Addresser and the formatives are eu "I", noi "we" (-f Addresser), tu, voi (—Addresser). The same as the nouns, the third person personal pronouns as well as the other Pro formatives do not contain the semantic feature Addresser. Optional transformations specific of affective speech permit, however, the incorporation of —Addresser by turning the noun into the vocative 11 : 11

Tiktin (1945), p. 200 considers that the vocative could be conceived as an apposition in relation to Personal : "Vocativul nu stà in nici un raport gramatical cu restul propoztyiei ( . . . ) : N-am vreme, Domnule! Cel mult el s-ar putea considera ca un fel de apozifie la pronumele tu, voi exprimat sau cuprins In verb : Vino, primâvarà, vino! (adicà tu care eçti primàvara) ; Vnde ai fost (tu), netrebniculel" ; idem, p. 93 : " . . . unele cuvinte de reverenda ( . . . ) se considerà ca pronume personale : Maria mea poruncesc, dta vorbeçti, dû. sunteli la rînd, nu porunceçte, oorbeçte, este." See also Cipariu (1869), p. 262 : "Loculu pronumelui de a'3 persona- lu cuprendu sustantívele in numinativ : er'a in a'2 persona vocativului loru, seau si numinativulu, deca acest'a e impreunatu cu posesivulu luu, ta, pr. domni'a . . . la bene scii, ca si : tu bene scii etc." and Cipariu (1877) p. 39 : "Cele alalte nume, in câtu suntu sustantive, tote suntu : in vocativu de person'a a doua er' in numinativu, si in cele alalte casure suntu de person'a a treia".

II. PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES

103

Ajuta-ma prietcne ! "Help me, my friend.!" (= Ajuta-mfi, tu ! " Y o u help me !"), or of -(-Addresser : Te captu§este ea Marioara acusi! " S h e , Marioara, she will give you a good dressing d o w n ! " ( = Te captu$esc eu acusi! " I will scold you just now !").

§ 15. SCHEME C9 Eel -> R ~ ( N m z r # S # where E -> O The above scheme abbreviates two rules : C9 (I)

Eel

E~Nmz~#S#

(II) Eel -> E ~ # S # The symbols E and 4 t S # represent the minimal expansion of E e l 1 2 . The optional appearance of the symbol Nmz in the context E ensures the obtention (through transformations) of the nominalized verbal forms that function as IS" modifiers. 13 Cipariu (1877) states t h a t the relative transformation ( s l r a f o r m n l i u n e a relativa) deleting the copula lias to operate on simple, present tense sentences. Otherwise, due to the fact t h a t a special participle does not correspond to each verbal tense, the deletion would not be recoverable. Cf. Cipariu (1877), p. 178 : " D e c i pentru ca straformatiunea sa fie esacta la intielesu la noi se pote face, numai candu propusetiunea relativa e simpla si cu verbulu sustantivu in presente, pr. omalu, celu ce este intieleplu, are bunu nume, — seau cu omisiune : omulu, celu inlieleptu are nume bunu ; — omitiendu si relativulu ce si verbulu este, propusetiunea este esacta la intielesu. T o t e alte transformatiuni cu omisiune, in propusetiuni cu alte verbe si alte tempure, suntu mai multu seau mai pucinu esacte ; de exemplu propusetiunile : D. dieu, carele face minuni, si carele a facutu cerulu si pamenlulu ; — transformandu-se s'aru dice : D. dieu facutoriulu de minuni, si facutoriulu cerului si pamentului ; va se dica : participiulu facutoriu s'ar' pune si pentru presentele face, si pentru trecutulu a facutu, ceea ce nu e esactu". Idem, p. 179, in note : " 1 . Spre esactitatea straformatiunei s'ar' recere, ca pentru fiacare tempu se fia unu participiu anumitu, ca la greci, pr. participiu presente, preteritu si futuru pentru activu, si totu atâtea áltele pentru pasivu ; pvecandu la latini lipsesce participiulu trecutului in activu si alu presentelui in pasivu, er' la noi nu este de catu unulu pentru activu si altulu pentru pasivu. 2. Alta dificúltate mai este, ca unele verbe, seau nu au nece macaru aceste doua participia amendoua, pr. verbulu am, participiulu avutu, er' nu si avutoriu, — seau, deca le au, nu se potu apleca, fiendu ca nu permite usulu, pr. delà dormu, participia-le dormitu, dormitoriu, nu suntu usitate ca participia. De aceea propusetiuni, ca ; omulu, care are bani pote Irai ca banulu, —si : omulu, care dorme multu, strica sanetatea sa, — dupa regúlele omisiunei grecesci, si latine, transformate s'aru dice : omulu avutoriu de bani, si omulu dormitoriu multu . .. E r ' deca propusetiunile are fi eu verbe in alte tempure, pr. omulu, carele avuse bani, acumu nu are, — si : omulu, carele dormise multu, acnmu nu dorme, — transformandu-se dupa acele regule, nu s'aru poté dice, decatu : omulu avutoriu de bani acumi; nu arc, si : omulu, dormitoriu seau dormitu acumu nu dorme, ceea ce e nesuferitu".

T H E TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF

104

ROMANIAN

16. SCHEME CIO E

j ( C o r r e l a t i v e " Flex~(Pos)l \Ger |

where relative O, Pos ( = possessive) - > O, and Ger ( == gerund) -> AThe scheme 010 stands for the following rules : CIO (I) E S u f n ~ P l e x ~ ( P o s f ( D . E ) where : Suf n -> A Scheme C l l is an instruction of rewriting the nominalization symbol N m z in the form of a sequence consisting of a nominalization suffix (Suf n ), Inflexion, possessive, and the preposition DE. I t abbreviates the following rules : O i l (I) (II) (III)

Nmz -> Suf n ~Flex~Pos~-D.i/ (a) Nmz

Suf.TFlex~D.Z7

(b) N m z

Suf n ~Flex~Pos

Nmz -> Suf,TPlex

106

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL

S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

In principle, any of the formatives -r-, -t-, -ant-, -}i-, -tat-, -e(a)l-, -ef-, -iun-, -mint-, -to(a)r-13, a.s.o., which help deriving a noun or an adjective from a verbal basis, pertains to the minor class [[Suf n ]]. The above suffixes may be divided sometimes into a segment representing the suffix proper and an inflectional portion : -toar- in seceratoare "reaper, harvester", may be analyzed as -tor- (appearing in secerator "reaper"), plus the vowel alternation o ^ o a which, together with the final -e, is underlain by F l e x ; -eal- in amefeala may be analyzed as the suffix proper -el- (appearing in the genitive-dative singular or in the nominative-accusative plural amefeli "dizziness-es" plus the vowel alternation e~ea which, together with the final -a is underlain by Flex. The specification of the symbol Flex is to be achieved, among others, through a morphophonemic rule in the terms of which the selection of the inflectional formatives is conditioned by the Sufn beside which they occur : Flex

E

¡-ti' -tat-iunSuf„ -mint-mint\-tor-

-A

(-r- \ -antSufn -el\-tur- J

- U

l-tet-

\

mint' -tor

;

Suf„

Examples : explica-fi-E, buna-tat-E, indicaf-iun-E, ruga-mint-.E, hibi-toar-E, aratu-r-A, alternant-A, vraj-eal-A, finu-t-U, cit-ef-U, jura-mint-U, iubi-tor- U. The symbol Flex is optionally followed by the symbol Pos because in a nominalized construction achieved with the help suffixes, the complement or the subject of the nominalized verb either an attribute in the genitive, or an attribute preceded by 13

For an exhaustive list, see Ileana Vincenz (1971).

and DE of certain pass into the pre-

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

107

RULES

position DE to the noun or adjective derived from the verb. E.g. prietenii privesc "the friends look" by nominalization turns into privirea prietenilor "the friends' glance", o privire a prietenilor " a friends'glance", privire de prieteni "glance of friends". In this situation the genitive and DE may be interpreted as accompanying automatically the nominalization suffix and treated as components of a discontinuous morpheme. When the noun (or adjective) resulting from the nominalization has no definite article, al, a, ai, ale, are obligatory : privirea prietenilor, but o privire a prietenilor, aceasta privire a prietenilor. In the situations in which the noun preceding Pos maintains the deep structure definite article, Pos is deleted. One thus avoids such impossible surface structures as *privirea a prietenilor, *casa a vecinului and gets the correct privirea prietenilor, casa vecinului. Since there are also Sufn which — for one reason or another — do not transpose the relation verb / object or verb / subject into the noun / attribute relationship, one needs a subcategorization rule such as : [Pos "[[Sufn]]• + _\DE Tlie

1 — | ^DE) ]

termination;

the — £

^orm

nouns

(adjectives)

which

admit

de-

J Sufn correspond to nominalization suffixes

used to form nouns (adjectives) never determined. The suffix -tor- belongs to the first category, regardless of whether the form derived from the verb is a noun or an adjective : iubitor de c&rfi, iubitorul de carfi "(the) book lover", iubitor al c&rfilor, iubitorul carjilor "(the) lover of the books", om iubitor de e&rfi, om iubitor al c&rjilor "book-loving man". Suffixes like -bil- or -iv- belong to the second category, in the sense that a form obtained by using them cannot be determined by a noun in the genitive or a noun preceded by the preposition de. As a consequence of this rule, when the expansion Suf n ~Flex~Pos is chosen for Nmz, the symbol Sufn cannot be rewritten by a suffix belonging to the -bil- or -iv- class, but only through one belonging to the -tor-, -inf-, etc. class. When the expansion Suf^FIex is chosen, Sufnis not rewritable through -tor-, -inf- (or any other suffix belonging to this class), but only through a suffix of the -bil-, -iv- class. Since the symbol iTmz may occur in two different expansions — under the domination of the symbol Nominal (C8), or under the domination of the symbol Bel (C9) — Sufn may appear either in a sequence like : DerSuC- • • # S #

108

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

generated through the derivation: Det~ifominal~... (06) Det'Nmz^ # S # . . . (08) Det~Suf n ~... # S # (Oil) or in a sequence like : E~Suf n ~ . . . # 8 # generated through the derivation : E ~ . . . B m z ~ . . . # S # (09) E ~ . . . S u C . . . # 8 # (Oil). The partition into Sufn dominated by Nominal and Sufn dominated by Eel is ensured by the subcategorization rule:

In this way the grammar expresses the distinction between the nominalized verbal forms functioning as adjectives, characterized by + [ E ], and those functioning as nouns, characterized by — [E ]. Therefore, in the Lexicon, each Sufn will bear the specification + [ B ] i + [ » _ ] ] This is the formalized rendering of — [E._„] or, possibly, the fact that such suffixes like -el- derive nouns, suffixes like -iv- derive adjectives, suffixes like -tor- derive either nouns or adjectives. When replacing the A Sufn by a formative of the Lexicon, -tor- or -ivwill be selected for the syntactic feature + [ E ] (and not -el- marked — [E ]); -el- or -tor- for the syntactic feature — [ E ] (and not -iv-, which is marked + [ E ]). A series of selection rules may refine the partition of the Sufn formatives depending on the syntactic features of the verb in the same expansion. Let us mention here the syntactic feature Pas] introduced in the Sufn reading by a subcategorization scheme like : [[Sufjr

/

+ +

—

—

" + v . ± [ "

V

-

Pas]

J

Pas] J

The scheme ensures the partition into : a) the formatives -ar-, - er-, ir- (suffixes of the long infinitive) marked in the dictionary by +V because they may produce forms with a passive sense, + ±[—Pas], like trecerea podului de (catre) mine "the passing over of the bridge by me" (equivalent topodulestetrecut de {catre) mine "the bridge is passed over by me''),

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

109

as well as forms with an active sense, like trecerea mea "my passing over" (equivalent with eu tree " I pass over"), and b) the formative -int- marked +V occurring in constructions that are equivalent + + [ _ Pas] exclusively with a passive deep structure: folosinfa acestui obiect "the use of this object" = only and exclusively acest obiect este folosit (de catre X) "this object is used (by X)". The scheme prevents the selection of a suffix belonging to the -infclass in front of a sentence the infinitivization of which does not include a + P a s feature.

§ 18. RULE C12

PredP —> VP~AvP where VP (=Verb Phrase) -> O AvP ( = Adverbial Phrase) -> O At the deep structure level, any S contains an AvP. Special local transformations may later on incorporate AvP and VP constituents such as MT, md, etc. § 19. SCHEME CI3

VP

V~ I ( P ^ ~ N P ~ ( P a s ) f ( N P ) p M d f ( P r e p P ) | Predicative J

where Pas (=passivization) -> O Md ( = modal) -> O PrepP ( = prepositional phrase) O, and Predicative 14 -s- O If we expand the {} in the above scheme, we get schemes C13' and 013" : C13' VP -> V~(P£~NP~(Pas))"(NPr(Mdr(PrepP) 013" VP ^ V"Predicative~ ( M d ( P r e p P ) 14

The term is used in the same sense in Tiktin (1945), p. 22 : "Vorba unita cu subiectul prin verbul copulativ se numejte predicativul".

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

110

If we take into consideration one ( ) pair at a time in 013', from left to right, we get the rules : 013 (I) (II) (III) (a) (b) (c)

VP V~PE~NT~PAS~NP~Md~PrepP YP -> V~PE~NP'KP'McTPrepP VP V~ PiTNP~Pas~Md~PrepP Y P -> V~P^"]SrP~Pas~irP~PrepP YP -> V~PJS~NP~Pas~SrP~Md

where (I), (II), (III) are used to mark ordered rules, whereas (a), (b), (c) signal unordered rules. If we take into consideration two ( ) pairs at a time in 013', from left to right, we get the rules : 013 (IY) (a) VP -> V~JVP~Md~PrepP (b) VP -> V~PiTNP~Md~PrepP (c) YP - »

P~NP~PrepP

(d) VP -> V~P£"NP"]SiP"Md (e) YP -> V~P-ET:NT~Pas~PrepP (f) VP -> V~P.E~:tfP~Pas~Md (g) YP

P~Pas~NP

all of which are unordered with respect to each other. If we consider three ( ) pairs at a time, from left to right, in 013', we get the rules : 013 (V) (a) VP -> V~Md~PrepP (b) VP V~KP~PrepP (c) VP -> V~NP~Md (d) VP VPXTSP'PrepP (e) VP -> V ' P E ' I P ' N P (f) VP -> V~PJ5~NP~Pas all of which are unordered with respect to each other. If we take into consideration four ( ) pairs at a time, from left to right, in 013', we get : 013 (VI) (a) YP V~PrepP (b) VP -> V~STP (c) VP V~Md (d) VP -> Y~PE~XP

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

111

and if we take into consideration five ( ) pairs at a time, from left to right, in C13', we get : C13 (VII)

VP

V.

0 1 3 " can be expanded in a similar way in the rules : C13 ( V I I I ) (IX)

(X)

VP

V~Predicative~Md~PrepP

(a)

VP

V~Predicative~PrepP

(b)

VP — V~Predicative"Md V P -> V~Predicative.

The sole obligatory symbol in the expansion of V P is the symbol V. The occurrence of the symbol NP marks a moment of recursivity imposing the return to rule C6. Since the symbol NP may dominate # S # , its inclusion into rule 013 is likely to ensure the generation of direct object and indirect object clauses introduced by conjunctions or relative pronouns, and adverbial clauses of manner. We have marked by P the object in the accusative (direct object), by NP the object in the prepositionless dative, by PrepP (see rule C21) the object in the accusative or dative with preposition (the indirect objects). On the surface structure level, the direct objects not preceded by the preposition PE will be arrived at by a deletion transformation (see T23). According to rule 013, every V P contains on the deep structure level a single direct object, a single prepositionless indirect object, and a single indirect object preceded by a preposition. Sequences such as a invafa pe cineva ceva " t o teach somebody something", a anuria ceva pe cineva " t o announce somebody something", a ascultape cineva ceva " t o examine somebody something", a rugape cineva ceva " t o ask somebody something", a sfatui pe cineva ceva "to advise somebody something", a trece pe cineva clasa " t o promote somebody the class", a pwne pe cineva sef " t o put somebody a chief", etc. will be defined neither as transitive verbs with two complements as in Gramatica (1963), nor as verbs with direct object and secondary object as in Pana Dindelegan (1970a), but as transforms resulting from local transformations applied to such underlying deep structures as : CAUZA "cause"~P.E r ' ( A O T ~ " a c t " ~ S l " t o " ' ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ i i T V l T A ~ ( + Indef )NP)S)NP,CAUZA "cause"~P-E~(ACT " a c t " ~ S l " t o " ~ ( ( +Indef)NP~AFLA " l e a r n " " ( + I n def)NP)S)NP, ASCULTA "examine"~Pi/~(CHESTIUNE "question"" DACA " whether "~(( + I n d e f ) i J T " § T I " k n o w " " ( + Indef)NP)S) NP, R U G A " a s k " " P i T ( A C T " a c t " ~ S A " t o " ((+Indef):NP~FACE " d o " "

112

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

( +Indef)NP)S)NP, SFATU1 "advise"~PiT(ACT "act"~SA "to"~(( + Indef)NP~FACE "do"~( +Indef)KP)S)NP, CAUZA "cause"~PiT(FAPT "fact"~CA~((+Indef)NP~TEECE "promote"~CLASA "the class")S) JSP, CAUZA "cause"~P-E~(FAPT "faet"~CA~(( +Indef)NP~DEVEIiI "become"~§EF "chief")S)XP, respectively. In the above examples, an incorporation process accounts for the unique surface verb. The incorporation affects the verb in the main sentence and the VP in the object clause : CAUZA -f- iNVATA something". ASCULTA something"

+

CEVA -> invaja

CEYA -> asculta

ceva, ceva,

preda examina

ceva ceva

"to

teach

"examine

EUGA + FACE CEVA -» ruga ceva "to ask something" SFATUI + FACE CEVA -> sfatui

ceva

"to advise something", etc.

The previous VP incorporation would explain why passivization gives : Elevul e ascultat lecfia de catre profesor "The student is examined the lesson by the teacher" and never *Lecfia e ascultata de profesor pe elev 15. Notice also that the VP seems to include obligatorily a + [ ( + H u m a n ) VP ] verb. No surface structures containing more than one prepositionless indirect object occur in standard Romanian. The surface structures containing more than one PrepP will be generated by a transformation of false coordination (see T2) : Eu merg cu el la mama " I go with him to my mother", Ei au navalit asupra lor cu armele "They rushed at them with weapons" are therefore underlain by (EU t M E E G E CU E L " I go with him")S~Coord~(EU 2 M E E G E LA MAMA " I go to my mother")S where EU X = EU 2 , and (Eli N A v A L I ASUPEA L O E "They rush at them")S~ Coord~(EI 2 N A v A L I CU A E M E L E "They rush with weapons")S where Elj = EI 2 , respectively. The symbols Md, Pas will be rewritten later on. The symbol Predicative, equivalent to the predicative noun of traditional grammar (see rule 022) is incompatible with PE~JSTP (from which the incompatibility Pas / Predicative follows). This is marked in the scheme by introducing them in alternative expansions. In other words, scheme C13 ensures the avoidance of deep structures of the type : . . . copula~Predicative~direct object, • • • copula~Predicative~agentive complement. 15

Cf. L a u r a Vasiliu (1967), p. 354.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

113

Such constructions as El ma banuieste hof " H e suspects me a thief", El ma considera inteligent " H e considers me intelligent", El ma doreste vesela " H e wishes me cheerful", El ma simte ostil " H e feels me hostile" 16 are transforms underlain b y : lsrP~V~Pj5~(Nominal~Conj~(NP~P/~ Predicative)S)N"P forms: EL " h e " ' B l ¥ U I "suspect"~PJ57~(FAPT " f a c t " " OA " t h a t " ~ ( E U "I"~FI "be"~HOT "thief")S)NP, E L "he"~OONSID E E A "consider"~P.E~(FAPT " f a c t " ~ C l " t h a t " ~ ( E U "I"~FI "be"~ IiTTELIGEiTT "intelligent" )S)UP, etc. I n contradistinction to the surface double object verbs above, the surface direct-object-plus-predicative transforms do not undergo passivization. By incorporating the V~Predicative of the object clause, the surface verb has a copula character. 013 allows the subcategorization of Y according with the following contextual features : [ P E ' N P ] , [ iTP], [ Md], f PrepP], [ Predicative]. The opposition + [ P-ETliP] / — [ P i T N P ] ensures the partition of the class V into the subclasses : + 1. iubi "love", minca "eat", da "give", face "make", spune "tell", etc.

2. exulta "exult", descinde "descend", etc.

Since we consider t h a t in the deep structure they appear in the context PE~1STP where no semantic interpretation except for +Indef can be given to NP, the absolute transitive verbs of traditional grammar are transforms arrived at through optional deletion : Dai mereu si nu se satura "You keep giving and it's never enough", Toatd lumea manmca "Everybody eats" would thus be underlain by ( + Indef)NP~DA "give" ~ Pi? ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ ( + I n d e f ) N P ~ M E R E U "ceaselessly", TOATA LUMEA "everybody"~MiNCA " e a t " ~Pii~( + I n d e f ) N P respectively where, due to the fact that the verb is defined as -f [ P_E~NP] in the Lexicon and to the fact that NP is interpreted as -flndef, the deletion of the direct object is recoverable and therefore allowed. The syntactic feature [ P ] can be refined syntactically : (a) as + [ Pi ± Anter . — " - I n d -> ± S u b j

(VI)

-> ± Pres

(I) rewrites the categorial symbol MT by the syntactic feature + M T ( = under the domination of MT). (II) offers the possibility of an option between supplementing + M T with + or —Ind ( = indicative). According to (III), in the context of + I n d , one may introduce the positively or negatively specified feature Pres ( = present). + Ind corresponds to the present indicative. In the context of -t-Presj —Pres, (IV) ensures the introduction of the feature Perf ( = perfect) marks the imperfect indicative. According to (V), -f Perf entails -find —Pres -Perf the subsequent specification of the feature Anter ( = anterior). In this ), is distinguished from way the past perfect (marked by + Ind —Pres +Perf +Anter the simple perfect (marked by -find " —Pres -fPerf —Anter According to (VI), the specification of the feature Subj ( = subjunctive) is obligatory in the context of —Ind. f" —Ind 1 marks the present subjunc[ +SubjJ tive, while - I n d marks the present imperative. -Subj The symbol A will be rewritten in scheme 016. As O symbols, A and MT do not correspond to a phonological representation in the Lexicon.

[

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

125

I t is the incorporation : A + MT + Flex -> A that allows the insertion of the [ [ A + MT + F l e x ] ] terminal symbols in the verbal inflection. In this way the model accounts for the syncretism mood/tense/person/number in A or Verb. As one may notice, (I) —(VI) enumerate the simple tenses of the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative. The generation of the compound tenses is ensured by the rewriting of the symbol A in 016.

§ 22. SCHEME CI 6 A -> AM~ Part imrrinf(J7~iPart [AS J jGer where AM -> O, VOI -> O, O,

AS FI

-> O,

Part -> AGer -> A. Scheme C16 is more of a morphophonemic than of a syntactic nature. Since it rewrites an optional symbol (see 015) it is an optional scheme. I t abbreviates the following optional rules : C16 (I) A -> AM'~Part ( I I ) (a) A -> F O I ' l n f ' ^ / ' P a r t ' ^ Z ' P a r t (b) A

VOI~Inf~FI~Part^FI~Ger

(c) A

VOrinCFI'Ger~FZ~Part

(d) A ->

VOrini'FrGer~FI~Ger

(e) A -> J.£~InF.FI~Part ~_FZ~Part (f) A - » ^l*S,~Inf~i Aft~lni~FI~ (m) A VOrini (III) A -> ¿ $ T l n f

Ger

B y participating into AM + MT + Flex VOI + MT + Flex + MT + Flex

incorporations such as : A, A, A,

AM, VOI, AS orient the lexicalization towards : am, ai, a, am, a\i, au, corresponding to the class [[AM + MT + F l e x ] ] , voi, vei, va, vom, veft, vor, corresponding to the class [ [ VOI + MT + Flex]], a§, ai, ar, am, a\i, ar, corresponding to the class [[AS + MT + Flex]]. The minor class [[Part]] is rewritten through -t-, -s-. The minor class [[Inf]] was discussed under 06. The minor class [[Ger]] includes the formatives -indu and indu. The option between the two forms is ensured by a morphophonemic rule which takes into consideration the stem vowel of each verb. In the word final or in front of a pronominalized NT in the accusative singular, a morphophonemic rule will ensure the deletion of final u, thus filtering such surface structure forms as cintind "singing", cintind-o "singing (about) her" out of cintindu, cintindu o. Verbs like creste "grow", ajunge "reach, arrive", aduce "bring", alege "choose", intoarce "(re)turn", etc., being represented in the Lexicon by a verbal root ending in 7c, g (cresc-, ajung-, aduc-,aleg-, intorc-) do not raise special problems in forming the -indu gerund form. In verbs like sedea "sit", cadea "fall", roade "gnaw", crede "believe", seoate "take out, draw out", having the verbal roots sed, -cad, -rod-, cred-, scot-, the consonantal alternations z, f in front of the -indu form are not predictable. This makes us wonder whether such verbs should not receive two phonological representations in the Lexicon. Special transformations will have to reverse the order in Inf~FZ, Part~FI, Gev~FI generated through C16 , in I n f " . . . vb, P a r t " . . . vb, Gei ~ . . . vb (generated through C14, C15, C16, and C17 rules) in order to get the sequences _F2~Inf, .FZ~Part, FI~Ger and vb~Inf, vb~Part, vb'Ger, respectively. In the case of FI, we shall have to introduce such idiosyncratic incorporations as : FI + Inf - > / t FI + Part fost.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

127

One gets the gerund form fund normally, from the sequence i DE CÀTRE'Reft 32

Cf. L a u r a V a s i l i u ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p.

359.

130

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OP ROMANIAN

The prepositionsl sequence DE CATBE " b y " is convertible into the less emphatic DE b y an optional deletion. A s against P a r t dominated b y A - A u x - V , P a r t dominated by Pas is definable as + P a s . The same happens w i t h Eefl. The + P a s E e f l tolerates b u t the ma, (see the § 2 3 ) .

te, se, ne,

va, se

25. SCHEME C 1 9

(C-E7£)~md*~(Prep)'

Md

({-•Efll^})

Inf Ger

PE~PAHT~-E

where md

A

The scheme abbreviates the following rules : C19

(I)

Md

&EIi~md~Prep~R~#S#

(la)

Md

Oi?Z~md~md~Prep~E~# S #

(lb)

Md

C-Bi^md~md^md~Prep~E~ # S #

(II)'

Md -> md~Prep~E~ # S #

(Ila)'

Md -> m d ~ m d ~ P r e p ~ E ~ # S #

(lib)'

Md

md~md~md~Prep~E~#S#

(III)'

Md

(Ilia)'

Md - » CEL~md~md~E~#

(Illb)'

Md -> CEL'md'md~md~

S #

R~ # S #

correspondents

II. P H R A S E STRUCTURE RULES

131

CEL~mcTPrep

(IV)'

Md

( I V a )'

M d

(IYb)'

M d ->

(Y)'

Md

->

C E L T m d ' m d ' P r e p 02?I/~md~md~md~Prep

^ m d ~ R ~ # S #

(Va)'

M d ->

(Vb)'

M d -> m d " m d ~ m d " R " # S

(VI)'

M d

-»

m d ~ m d ~ R ~ # S # #

md"Prep

(Via)'

M d

md~md~Prep

(Ylb) '

M d ->

md~md~md~Prep

(VII)'

Md

(Vila)'

M d

C ^ i ' m d ' m d

(Vllb)'

M d

C E L ' m d ' m d ' m d

(VIII) '

M d

m d

(Villa) '

M d ->

m d ' m d

(Vlllb)'

Md

m d ' m d ' r a d

(IX)

Md

(IXa)

M d - > CEL~

(IXb)

M d - > GEL'md'md'rad'Prep~-ESTE~

(X)'

M d -> md~Prep~-_B(STi?"# S

(Xa)'

M d

- > m d ~ m d ~ P r e p ~ - E S TE'

(Xb)'

M d

-> m d ~ m d ~ m d ~ P r e p ~ - . E $ T E ~ # S #

CElPmd

CEL~~md~Pre])~-EXTE~#

S #

m d ~ m d ~ P r e p - ER TE ~ #

S

#

^

# # S

#

s

#

T H E TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

132

(XI)'

Md -> CEL~md~-ESTE~#

S #

(XIa)'

Md -> CEL~md~md~-ESTE~#

(Xlb)'

Md -> CEL~md~md~md~-ESTE~#

(XII)'

Md ->

md~-ESTE~#S#

(Xlla)'

Md ->

md~md~-ESTE~#S#

(Xllb)'

Md ->

(XIII)

Md -> I n f ~ # S #

(XIY)

Md->Ger~#S#

(XV)

Md

S # S #

S #

PE~P&rt~-E~#

S #

The minor class [[md]] includes such terminal symbols as mult "much", pujin "a little", foarte "very", prea "over-", ultra-, extra-, arhi-, -isim, tot "still, also", taman "exactly, just", tocmai "just", cam "rather", aproape "almost", -a§-, -el- (diminutive suffixes), etc. With the exception of the prefixes and the suffixes, the formatives above may appear both in the context V _ and in the context Predicative (see 013). Rules 013 and 019 ensure therefore the generation of structures belonging to the type :

Nucleus

-el

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

133

RULES

or, in the case of the constructions built with a copula :

Pred P

"AvP

VP V

Aux

Predicative N »erb

Md

AjP

md

md

Flex -e

est-

alt-

-a

The constructions consisting of adverb of manner and adjective (foarte alba "very white", chiar alba "even white", prea alba "too white", mai albd "more white", cam vaga "rather vague"), adverb of manner and noun (tot Ion "John again", chiar Ion "John himself, no one else but John", doar Ion "only John", tot cucul "the cuckoo again", chiar cucul "the cuckoo itself", doar cucul "only the cuckoo", etc.) represent surface structures resulted from a special transformation of repositioning Md in front of the adjectival or nominal formatives. The constructions adverb of manner plus adverb of place, of time, etc. (tot acum "also now", tot aid "still here", chiar acum "just now", chiar aid "right here", doar acum "only now", doar aid "only here", etc.) do not necessitate repositioning transformations because the underlying Md and AvP symbols are generated in this sequence by 013. In this case we have only a reinterpretation of the syntactic relation, since the md symbols come under AvP. md is starred for the rule to allow such unlimited agglutinations as : md md'md md"md"md md"md"md"md . . . that occur in everyday language grozav de nemaipomenit de extraordinar de bine "tremendously inconceivably extraordinarily well", aproape cam prea dulce "somehow almost too sweet", etc.

134

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

We shall introduce the convention that in any md sequence, which is to be lexicalized, the last (extreme right) md in the sequence corresponds to either MULT "much" or PUTIN "a little", exclusively. That means that MULT and PUTIN are obligatorily included in any sentence base structure. Such surface realizations as : Ion este frumos "John is handsome" have to make clear through the intonational pattern (the "conviction" in the voice of the utterer) whether they are underlined by ION FI FRUMOS~(MULT)M& "John be handsome~(much)Md" or by ION FI FRUMOS~(PUTIN)M.& "John be handsome~(a little)Md". When two contiguous sentences satisfying specific identity conditions (see §2) include the same extreme right md in their base structure ; that is in constructions such as : ( . . . MULT "much" . . . CLAR "clear" . . . ) s r < • • • MULT "much" . . . CLAR "clear" . . . )S2, ( . . . P U T I N "little" . . . CLAR "clear" . . . )Si~( . . . PU^IN "little" . . . CLAR "clear" . . . )S2, these will be either : — deleted by special transformations and replaced by such sequences as : tot atit de clar "as clear as" S 1 ) , to delete the verbal element in # S X # and to convert the sentence •# Sj # into an adverb of manner. Out of a deep structure : #S# Md

i i i fate-

i • -I1

' i -e

1

one may obtain, through transformations of deletion and repositioning, the sequence frafeste "fraternally". The alternative obligatory symbols Inf, Ger, PU~Pa,vt~-E signal obligatory contraction transformations : (1) el vorbeste fara a se opri "he speaks without stopping" underlain by E L VORBI "he speak"~(EL NU SE OPRI "he not stop")Inf. (2) el merge cintind "he walks singing" (underlain by E L MERGE "he walk"~(EL "he" ClNTA "sing")Ger. (3) el cumpara pe alese underlain by E L CUMPARA "he buy"~(EL A L E G E "he choose" )Part We do not make a detailed analysis of these constructions but it seems worth pointing out that a semantic identity between the symbols contained in the dominant clause and the symbols contained in the expansion of # S # dominated by Md is absolutely necessary. Mention should be also made of the fact that the Inf-contraction is applied only if #S 1 #dominates NEG : el vorbeste "he speaks"~NEG . . . (el se opre§te)~N-acle>us "he stops".

H. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

137

§ 26. RULE C20 Prep P -> Prep'NP most of the [[Prep]] formatives are allowed to occur as expansions of Prep in 021 : a "of", cdtre "towards, t o " , contra "against", cu "with", de "of, by", fdrd "without", in(tru) "in", la " a t " , lingd "near, by", pe "on", pentru "for", pina "to, till", spre "to, towards", sub "under", etc. One could add to this list such prefixes as des(z) - occurring in dezrddacina "uproot" = scoate din rdd&cind "pull out by the root", dezrobi "liberate" = scoate din robie "release from slavery", etc., in- occurring in incatdrama "clasp, buckle" = a introduce, a baga in catarama "to introduce, to put into a clasp, buckle", inseua "saddle" = apune in §a, a pune saua pe "to put a saddle on"), etc. The prepositional formatives tolerated in the expansion of PrepP will be arrived at by a subcategorization rule : Prep

[[Prep]]

>P

This scheme ensures the partition into prepositions that occur exclusively under the domination of the symbol Verb (prefixes in any case) and prepositions preceding a nominal phrase under the domination of PrepP. Further investigation will have to verify whether the partition may be done also on the level of the preposition proper, into prepositions "implied" by the Verb and prepositions "implied" by the noun. Applying successively C13, 014, 017, 021 we have the possibility to obtain the following derivation (of which we reproduce only the symbols of direct concern here) : V . . . PrepP V e r b " . . . PrepP . . vb~. . . Prep". . . PrepP . . . v b ~ . . . P r e p " . . . Prep~ifP

(013) (014) (017) (021)

The sequence P r e p " . . . Prep accounts for the compound prepositions (such as de la, de pe la, de prin), a transformation of bringing together the two Prep being necessary because other symbols interfere inbetween. In case the two Prep are incompatible with one another, local transformations will delete one of the prepositions.

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

138

According to the fact that they impose or not the articulation of the next noun, the prepositions can be subcategorized as 33 +[_iTArt] or —[_iTArt] asupra a, de, de la, de pe, de prin, despre, din, impotriva dintre, dintru, in, intre, intru, la, pe, pentru, sub Prepositions such as contra, cu are not marked with respect to the feature above, because they may be followed by nouns with or without article. Bach preposition contains a series of inherent semantic features transferable over the following KP, more exactly over the noun in the expansions of iTP, as the rule of semantic transfer does not seem to act in the context „ P e r s o n a l or N m z " # S # . In other words, the semantic feature -(-Direction contained in prepositions like spre, catre, la "to, towards" is transferred over the noun in the constructions spre casa "homewards", catre padure, la padure "to the woods" (equivalent to in direcfia casa "direction home", in direcfia casei "in the direction of the house" and In direcfia padure "direction woods", in direcfia padurii "in the direction of the woods", respectively). In the same way the semantic feature +Place contained in the preposition linga "near, by, next t o " is transferred over the next noun in : linga geam "by the window" linga banca "near the bench", etc. The process might be represented as : (1)

(2)

spre —i—> casa catre padure [[Prep]] +N -f Direction .'

linga

'—f->

[[Prep]] + Place

geam banca +N

whose semantic outcome is, after applying the transfer rule : (1)' spre catre [[Prep]] :

casa padure +N -(-Direction

(2)' linga [Prep]] ;

geam banca +N -fPlace

The feature -(-Animate, -(-Human, etc. are incompatible with features like +Place, -[-Direction, -fTime. Therefore the transfer rule is automatically blocked in the context „ P e r s o n a l , _ ( + H u m a n ) N , etc. This 33

Ibidem.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

139

explains the distinction intuitively operated in traditional grammars between indirect objects such as vin la el " I come to him", merg spre cine imi place " I go to whom I like", in the case of which the transfer does not take place as it is shown by the diagnostic questions la cine? spre cine? "to whom" (not unde? "where?", incotro? "which way?") and circumstantial complements such as stau Unga drum " I live near the road", vin la slujba " I come to office", merg spre casa " I go home" (in which the semantic transfer takes place, as it is proved by the diagnostic questions unde stau ? "where do I live?", unde vin? "where do I come?", unde merg? where do I go?" (and not lingd ce staui "near what am I living?", la ce vin? "to what do I come?", sprece merg? "to(wards) what do I go?"). The presence of the symbol N P implies the return to C6 in which the expansion . . . Nominal""... Eel is capable to account for the (a) circumstantial clauses introduced by preposition plus relative element, and the expansion . . . N o m i n a l " . . . C o n j S # is capable to account for (b) the circumstantial clauses of cause, and the final clauses of traditional grammar. By incorporation with the relativized NP, the relative dominated by E gives one of the [[relative + N P ] ] formatives unde "where", cind "when", care "which, what", cine "who", ce "what", etc. These function as introductory elements used to bring in clauses belonging to category (a). If [[relative + N P ] ] is expressed by cind or unde, a local transformation deleting Prep in the sequence : Prep"... E " # S # is necessary. In the case of the expansion Nominal". . . C o n j " # S # N dominated by Nominal may be deleted when containing the feature +Indef. One gets thus sequences like pentru~( +Indef)N"ca "because, since", pentru~( + I n d e f ) l f " m sa "in order to, in view of, with a view to".

§ 27. SCHEME C21

Predicative -> Aj~Flex"(NP) where Aj Scheme C22 sums up the following rules : C22 (I) Predicative -> Aj~Flex~NP (II) Predicative Aj "Flex

140

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

Rule C22(I) permits the generating of Predicative sequences of the type : propriu gramaticii "peculiar to grammar", scump tuturor "dear to all", ostil razboiului "hostile to the war", etc. in which the adjective functioning as Predicative tolerates the direct determination through NP (always in the dative). This possibility characterizes only certain adjectives. We have not included the symbol PrepP among the possible expansions of the symbol Predicative, as we consider that, according to C13, sequences like : casa este din lemn "the house is (made out) of wood", cartea este cu greseli "the book is (written) with mistakes", elevul este din Bacau "the student is from Bacau" may be generated from deep structures like: casa este casa R~( +Indef)NP~( -|-Factitive)Y~J'_E casaTdin lemn)GPrep We have not included the symbol Pos among the possible expansions of the symbol Predicative since we consider that sequences like : casa este a vecinului "the house is the neighbour's" cartea este a elevilor "the book is the students' " caietul este al meu "the notebook is mine" can be generated from : . . . R Pos YECIN AVEA PE CASA "the neighbour have the house", . . . R~Pos~ELEYII AVEA Pi? CARTEA "the students have the book", . . . R~Pos~EU AYEA PE CAIETUL " I have the notebook", (where PE marks the direct object character of casa, cartea, caietul), according to the sum pro Jiabeo optional transformation : . . . R~CASA "house"~FI~Pos~VECIN "neighbour" . . . R~CARTE "book"~FI "be"~Pos~ELEYI "students" . . . R ' C A I E T "notebook""FI "be"~Pos~EU " I " We do not include a symbol Det before Aj since we consider that sequences like : cartea este cam scumpa "the book is rather expensive" ea e foarte buna "she is very good" Ion e inca posomorit "John is still gloomy" regula este aproape perfecta "the rule is almost perfect" do not correspond to deep structures in which both cam and scumpa, foarte and buna, inca and posomorit are underlain by Predicative, but to deep structures in which the formatives cam, foarte, inca represent

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

141

RULES

expansions of the symbol Md, to be placed in front of A j through a special repositioning transformation :

VP

foarte cam prea urit frumos bun

The same is the case for such derived adjectives as albisor, albinef, albuf, albiu "rather white" (from alb " w h i t e " plus the suffixes -isor-, -ine\~, -uf-, -iu-), gtilbui, galbior, galbenel "yellowish, rather yellow" (from galben " y e l l o w " plus the suffixes -ui, -ior-, -el-), albastrui, albastrel, albastriu "bluish, bluey, rather blue" (from albastru " b l u e " plus one of the same suffixes), etc. which are obtained from a deep structure like :

On the deep structure level the occurrence of the adjective is admitted exclusively under the domination of the symbol Predicative and exclusively in the context Flex. The strict subcategorization of the symbol A j may proceed from conferring a distinctive status to the presence or absence of the symbol N P in the context A j . As we have already seen, the feature, + [ NP] characterizes adjectives belonging to the class of propriu "proper", scump "dear", ostil "hostile" (as well as adjectival Sufn as included in the derived prielnic, favorabil "favorable", credincios "faithful"), and the feature —[ N P ] adjectives in the class of mare " b i g " , mic "small", urit " u g l y " , frumos "beautiful", etc. If we take into consideration not only the Predicative, but also the expansion V P in which the symbol Predicative is introduced (see the derivation C13—C22), the symbols Md and PrepP admitted in the context

142

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

Predicative are likely to provide new criteria for the syntactic partition of adjectives. The strict subcategorization may thus be refined on the basis of the contextual features + [ . . .Md] and + [ PrepP]. The feature -f[ Md] characterizes adjectives that may appear in the context of the formatives cam, prea, foarte, mai, mai mult, mai pufin, etc. (see above) : urtt, "ugly", vesel "gay", destept "intelligent, awake", prost "stupid", etc. The feature —[ Md] characterizes adjectives like: viu "alive", mort "dead", superior "superior", inferior "inferior", anterior "anterior", posterior "posterior", interior "internal", exterior "external", ultim "ultimate, last", extrem "extreme", suprem "supreme", etc. (adjectives without degrees of comparison of traditional grammar). We do not realize whether the opposition + [ PrepP]/ —[ PrepP] may acquire a distinctive value, since, at this phase at least, we do not know of adjectives that would not tolerate the so-called "relation complement" (therefore characterized by —[____ PrepP] and thus opposable to + [.__ PrepP] adjectives) 34. Inside the group of -f[ PrepP] adjectives (bun de gura "mouth good" (talkative), sigur de izlnnda "victory sure" (confident in victory), aprig la minie "rage terrible" (hot-blooded), etc.), taking into consideration the concrete preposition occurring in the prepositional phrase might prove useful for further subcategorization.

§ 28. SCHEME C22

AvP (PreppSTP Scheme C22 abbreviates the rules : C22 (I) AvP -> (Prep)~JSTP (II) AvP -> NP Scheme C22 is a recursive scheme. I t marks the return to C6. We consider that the adverbs are surface results of various transformations. 34

Tiktin (1945), p. 134 c o m m e n t s upon the existence of certain adjectives w h i c h necessarily imply t h e use of a prepositional phrase : sigur de izbinda "sure of victory", lipsit de minle "lacking cleverness". In t h e first case the question arises w h e t h e r t h e subcategorization of the adjective (more e x a c t l y t h a t of Predicative), might operate w i t h the contextual feature [PrepP

]. The second example, of a participial nature, is generated through transformation and,

therefore, does not appear on the deep structure level.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

143

These may consist of incorporations such as : Det + ZI "day" -> astazi "today", ieri "yesterday", miine "tomorrow" Det + LOG "place" aid "here", acolo "there" Det -\-FEL "way" ->- a§a, astfel "so, in this way", of transformations bringing under the AvP node the Predicative of a cognate object (cf. § 19, 013), a.s.o. Under circumstances to be defined, the AvP is incorporated with MT. 4- Present accounts for the deep structure underlying adverbs such as acum "now" and aid "here", +Perfect accounts for the structures usually underlying atunci "then", and acolo "there" 35 , a.s.o. There are verbs which impose the lexicalization of AvP. Eomanian usage does not allow forms such as : *Ion se comporta, *Ion a copilarit, *8crisoarea dateaza, *Discvfia decurge, *Mirosul emana, *Ion loouieste, *Copilul s-a postat, *Cnnele 8-a pripasit, *Ion procedeaza, *Vinul provine, *Ion se poarta, *Fereastra raspunde, *0amenii situeaza tabara, *Casa valoreaza, *Pachetul cintare§te 36 , etc. § 29. THE SYMBOL FLEX The Symbol Flex has appeared under the domination of the symbols Pro, Det, Nominal, E , Nmz, Aux, Predicative, in rules 04, C7, 08, CIO, O i l , 015 and 021. According to rule 08, the symbol Flex may be found in the following distinct nominal expansions : 08 (I) . . . iTFlex (II) . . . Personal~Flex (III) . . . JSTmz~# S # ~ F l e x ensuring thus both the inflection of primary nouns (N) and of the first and second person personal pronouns (Personal). If we rewrite the symbol Nmz in keeping with rule Oil, expansion I I I will be turned into : Sufn " F l e x " . . . # S # ~ F l e x In the expansion of Nmz the symbol Flex thus ensures the introduction of the inflectional element requested by the nominal suffix in conformity with a series of morphophonemic selection rules. In the expansion of Predicative, the symbol Flex ensures the inflection of primary adjectives. The inflection of adjectives formed by derivation is ensured by the double occurrence of the symbol Flex in the expansion. 35

Cf. iVIiinea (1969), p. 5 3 3 and following.

34

Cf. Gabriela PanS Dindclegan ( 1 9 7 0 b ) , p. 3.

144

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

(06)

N o m i n a l " A r t " . . . Eel {Lz-#s#}^

F i e x

í Ni-, Flex Art

"

A r r

---

(08)

R e l

R~ifmz~# S #

Flex~Art~E~ Suf n ~Flex~(Pos

(

(09) S

#

(Oil)

Finally, the occurrence of the symbol Flex under the domination of V, Predicative, Pro is capable to ensure the verbal, adjectival, pronominal inflection, and the occurrence of the symbol Flex under the domination of Det ensures the inflection of the indefinite article of traditional grammar. A strict subcategorization rule might ensure the partition of the symbol F l e x as follows: [[Flex]] + [Det_ - ] (I) +[Nmz~#S#] + [Personal ] +[pronoun ] +[relative ] +[Sufn_] +[Verb._.__] l+[Aj _ ] In this way the model accounts for the classes of inflectional morphemes : nominal morphemes, verbal morphemes, adjectival morphemes, etc. Subsequently the following features may be introduced in the context [[Flex]]" (II)

[Flex]]

J

+Plural —Plural ± Plural

/B_ "[[Sufjn _-[K_]J Personal—

aPlural

Det pronoun relative [[[SufJ] L + [Eel—] Verb_ Aj

145

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E R U L E S

(III)

+Plural J -{-Masculine

1

\ —Masculine

—Plural" 1!

± Plural

(IV)

-[-Masculine —Masculine J^

-(-Masculine j —Masculine a Masculine

aPlural

(V)

pli:iral

JN

j I Det I pronoun relative [[Suf n ]] ' +[»-]" Aj_

—Oase/Yerb_ (VI)

/ -(-Masculine J —Masculine I ¿Masculine

(VII) (YIII)

• + Case

aMasculine -> aCase j" -(-Case

-fNominative

)]STP)ÎTucleus / VP — Nominative / (N_)VP

[ (IX)

—Nominative

/ ((N

I -(-Accusative /Prep. \ —Accusative

(X)

-Accusative -> f + Genitive / Pos . . . I —Genitive

(XI)

-Case

]

a Addressee

According to rule (II) all the nouns in the class N defined by the feature -(-Abstract or —Discrete admit exclusively the feature -(-Plural, or exclusively the feature —Plural: mil(a) "pity, charity", box "boxing" icr(e) "roe", lapte "milk" (the so-called pluralia tantum and singularia

146

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

tantum of traditional grammar). All symbols in the class iT that do not contain these features admit alternatively one of the features ± P l u r a l : cal "horse", banc(a) "bench", om "man", mas(a) "table", etc. The positive or negative specification of the feature Plural is taken over from the subject N P by the symbols Yerb and Aj which occur together with it in the Nucleus derivation. The same is true about the symbols Det, pronoun, relative, Suf n which take over the feature of number from the noun they occur with in the derivation N P : calul (—Plural) alearga (aPlural = —Plural) "the horse r u n s " ; casele (-fPlural) sint (aPlural = -fPlural) frumoase (a Plural = -f-Plural) "the houses are nice" un ( a P l u r a l = —Plural) om (—Plural) "a man", niste (a Plural = -f Plural) oameni (+Plural) "some people"; (munci-) -tor- (a Plural — —Plural) "worker", corresponding to a deep structure : N m z " . .. munceste~Flex . . . S u f ~ F l e x ~ . . . munceste' Sufn~

+ Flexl aPlural

+ Flex " -Plural [ +Flex 1 —Plural

and finally, also for the relative or the pronoun : elevul (—Plural) care ( a P l u r a l = —Plural) . . . , vine el ( a P l u r a l = —Plural) tata ( —Plural). Thus rule (II) expresses the opposition between the free selection of the number specification in the case of the noun, the first and second person personal pronouns, on the one hand, and the number agreement specific to the demonstratives, the verb, the adjective, the relative and all pronouns (except for the first and second person personal pronouns), on the other hand. As compared to this partition, the symbol Suf n occupies a place apart. I t may be defined as aPlural when characterized by the contextual feature - f [ B ], and as i Plural or —Plural when characterized by the contextual feature —[E ]. In other words, when the nominal suffix derives a + [ E ] adjective, its inflection takes over the positive or negative specification of the feature Plural contained in the inflection dominated by E . But, since in rule (II) the symbol relative is characterized also by an inflection aPlural, both in the case of the adjectival nominal suffix and in that of the relative we have to do with the taking over of the number free specification that is being contained in X, Personal or N m z ~ # S # . In the deep structure : elevuCCElTcare~Nmz~elevul iube§te carjile, care agrees in gender and number with elevul. Therefore, by saying that the Suf n dominated by JSTmz agrees in number with E we are saying, in the last analysis that it agrees with the noun elevul to which the relative refers.

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

147

When the nominal suffix derives a substantive — [E ], two alternatives may arise : a) the derived substantive contains the feature + Abstract: venirea " t h e a r r i v a l " , folosinta

" t h e u s e " , frumusefea

" t h e b e a u t y " , etc.,

and it is in this case a singularia tantum definible by —Plural, or b) the derived substantive is a nomen agentis, etc. definible by ¿Plural. Eule (III) establishes the correspondence between the free selection of the feature +Plural or —Plural and the free selection of the feature -(-Masculine or —Masculine generating complex Flex symbols like : +Flex +Flex +Flex +Flex -fPlural -(-Plural -Plural -Plural —Masculine, -f Masculi ne ---Masculine -¡-Masculine, corresponding to such inflectional formatives as : (laptOi "milt", (icr)e "roe", (lapt)e "milk", (mil)a "pity". In this way the model ensures the free selection of gender for the singularia and pluralia tantum nouns of traditional grammar and for some suffixes under the dominance of Suf n (see the discussion to rule (II)). Eule (IV) establishes the correspondence between the free selection of the feature ± Plural (relevant for the nominal elements which accept both the singular and the plural) and the free selection of one of the three alternatives : +Masculine, —Masculine or ¿Masculine . .. corresponding to the grammatical genders : masculine, feminine and neuter. Considering that the neuter does not represent a class on the level of grammatical gender exclusively, but a class in which the partition operates on the level of gender and number simultaneously (i.e. on the level of the features ± Masculine and ± Plural, we have denoted it in rule (IY) by : -Plural" -(-Masculine / —Masculine

-f-Plural

formalizing by means of this complex feature the traditional remark that neuter nouns are characterized by masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural. The feature above is contextually limited. It may appear only in the context N" . In other words, only the feature -(-Masculine or —Masculine may thereafter be introduced by the a specification in the [[SufJ]

A j __, according to wheL+ [R-]. ther the selected noun is found in the context (—Plural)Flex or ( -j-Plural) Flex. This means that, contrary to the -[-Masculine /—Masculine syncretism — relevant for the category of neutre nouns and expressed by context D e t p r o n o u n . . . . . . relative...

148

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

placing both specifications inside the same parenthesis [ . . . ] : ¿Masculine, all symbols containing the specification aMasculine may be rewritten alternatively by either +Masculine or —Masculine, aMasculine corresponding -{-Masculine 1 therefore to , , . . . —Masculine j According to rule (Y) all the inflections in which the feature Plural is introduced by agreement, with the exception of the verbal inflection, will also introduce by agreement the feature Masculine. The partition operated among the formatives Suf n by means of the opposition between the free selection and the taking over, by agreement, of the feature Plural is carried forth on the level of grammatical gender. Therefore, nominal suffixes that do not appear in the context R will select freely grammatical gender. Nominal-adjectival suffixes occurring in an R context will agree 4-Flex — in gender. In a context Nmz # S # both .,, ,. and -f Masculine + Flex are possible : munci(tor) "masculine, worker", dansa(tor) — Masculine "masculine, dancer" or munci(toare) "feminine, worker", dansa(toare) "feminine, dancer", veni(re) "feminine, coming", cade(re) "feminine, falling", etc. But in the context: JTominaPcfl»*e~lSrmz~# S # i t is compulsory to introduce a certain specification of the feature Masculine in agreement with the gender of the symbol under the dominance of Nominal. Therefore, only -[-Masculine will be introduced in the context : ( . . . + Masculine) N o m i n a P c a r e . . . and only —Masculine in the context: ( . . . —Masculine)Nominal~cflwe . . . I n keeping with the same rule (V), the verbal inflection does not require the specification of the feature Masculine, the correspondence established in a context Verb_ being between the features a Plural and — Case. To this point, in a context "Verb the symbol Flex is rewritten as : +Flex rule (Y) marking thus the moment of separating the nominal a Plural —Case inflection from the Rule (VI) confers freely the feature above [ [ S u f n ] ] —[R—]

verbal one. the feature +Case on all the formatives which select Masculine, implicitly on the formatives discussed Whereas, the inflections which take over the spe-

II. P H R A S E STRUCTURE

RULES

149

cification Masculine by agreement (the verbal inflection being excluded from this group according to rule (V)) also introduce by agreement the feature Case (see rule (VII)). The feature -f Case tolerates the further detailing of the complex symbol .Flex by the contextually determined option between the specification +Nominative and —Nominative (rule (VIII). +Nominative is introduced in the inflection of a Nominal dominated by NP Nucleus (i.e. a subject Nominal) or in the inflection of a Nominal dominated by a NP occurring (i.e. a predicative Nominal). The feature —Nominain the context Fl tive is introduced in all the other contexts. According to rule (IX) —Nominative is rewritten by +Accusative in the context Prep (implicitly in the context A _ ) and by —Accusative in all the other contexts. Rule (X) introduces in the context Pos the feature +Genitive and in any other context the feature —Genitive (equivalent to the traditional dative). Implicitly, any NP not preceded by Prep or by Pos and dominated by VP — except for the NP occurring in a context FI- will contain in the nominal inflection the feature —Genitive. Finally, rule (XI) ensures the introduction, by agreement, of the feature Addresser (which appears by free selection inside the symbol Personal) in the context of verbal inflection marked by —Case. The rules that have been formulated permit the rewriting of the symbol Flex by the following ensembles of features : in the context Det , according to rules I —II —V —VII: +Flex aPlural aMasculine aOase in the context N".

^ rp^i

,Personal

, according to rules I —II —III

—IV - V I - V I I I - I X - X : +Flex +Plural —Masculine -fCase -(-Nominative

+Flex, +Plural +Masculine -f-Case —Nominative -i-Accusative

+Flex, -fPlural 4-Masculine +Case —Nominative —Accusative -f Genitive

+Flex +Plural +Masculine +Case —Nominative —Accusative —Genitive _

150

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

¿Flex ¿Plural ¿ Masculine ¿Case ¿Nominative

' ¿Flex ¿Plural —Masculine ¿Case —Nominative ¿Accusative

" ¿Flex ¿Plural —Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative ¿Genitive

~ ¿Flex ¿Plural —Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative —Genitive

' ¿Flex -Plural —Masculine ¿Case ¿Nominative

' ¿Flex -Plural ¿Masculine ¿Case —Nominative ¿Accusative

" ¿Flex —Plural ¿Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative ¿Genitive

" ¿Flex —Plural ¿Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative —Genitive

' ¿Flex ¿Plural ¿Masculine ¿Case ¿Nominative

' ¿Flex ¿ Plura l ¿Masculine ¿Case —Nominative ¿Accusative

" ¿Flex ¿P l u ral ¿Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative ¿Genitive

" ¿Flex ¿P l u ral ¿Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative —Genitive

' ¿Flex ¿ Plura l —Masculine ¿Case ¿Nominative

' ¿Flex ¿Plural —Masculine ¿Case —Nominative ¿Accusative

' ¿Flex ¿P l u ral —Masculine ¿Case —Nominative —Accusative ¿Genitive

'¿Flex ¿Plural —Masculine i-Case —Nominative —Accusative —Genitive

' +Flex ¿Plural ¿Masculine/ —Masculine/ ¿Case ¿Nominative

—Plural

" ¿Flex ¿P l u ral ¿Masculine/

-Plural "

¿Plural

—Masculine/

¿Plural:

¿Case —Nominative ¿Accusative

II. P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

' ¿Flex ¿Plural ¿Masculine/

-Plural

' ¿Flex ¿Plural ¿Masculine/

—Masculine/

¿Plural

—Masculine/

151

—Plural " ¿Plural

¿Case —Nominative —Accusative —Genitive

¿Case —Nominative ¿Accusative ¿Genitive in the context relative

, according to rules I—II —V —VIII:

¿Flex aPlural aMasculine aCase in the context pronoun

, according to rules I —II —Y —VII:

¿Flex aPlural aMasculine aCase in the context Aj

, according to rules I —II —V —VII:

¿Flex aPlural aMasculine «Case in the context Verb. , according to rules I —II —V —XI: " ¿Flex aPlural —Case aAddresser The examination of these ensembles reveals the following : a) in the contexts Det , relative , pronoun , Aj the symbol Flex admits the rewriting in terms of the same specifications. This illustrates the morphologic identity of the context symbols and explains the frequent overlapping adjective —pronoun, numeral — pronoun — adjec-

152

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

tive, as well as the treatment of relatives as pronouns in traditional grammar; b) the most complicated inflection is to be found in the contexts iT , [[Suf n ]]Personal. and Verb which turn out to be morphologic classes utterly distinct from those discussed before, the similarity substantive — pronoun being non-existent on the inflectional level; c) by its morphologic behavior (the detailing of the symbol Flex) the symbol Personal is clear-cut distinct from the pronoun; d) the symbol a marks the moments of prediction — it is equivalent to the non-specification of -f or — (in the phonological or semantic) representations of the formatives in the lexicon. Therefore, to the extent in which the rewriting rules of the symbol Flex contain the a specifications, the rules occupy within the syntactic component a position similar to that the redundancy rules have in the phonological or semantic components ; e) traditional morphology defines each part of speech by all its inflectional features without making any distinction between inflection and agreement. By the way in which the symbol Flex is rewritten this distinction becomes evident: the paths (equivalent to the sum of the symbols that dominate the specification of the same feature) correspond to the paths of grammatical agreement in the expansion Nucleus of Y P ; in their turn, the features marked by + or — correspond to the contents of the so-called converted morphemes; f) it remains to define more precisely the exact content of such features as Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, and to see whether the intermediate specification of the feature Oase is still necessary or may be replaced by i-f Nominative] rewriting directly j _ W o m i n a t i y e J ; g) the features Plural, Masculine that specify grammatical number or gender must be distinguished from the semantic features Plurality, Male specifying collectivity and sex. We do not realize whether the necessity to distinguish between the two categories urges us to give them different denominations or whether it is enough to formulate a rule of "grammaticalization", i.e. of "delexicalization" according to which all features that -fFlex appear in a context are to be excluded from the semantic interpretation.

CHAPTER

III

TRANSFORMATION

RULES

We supplement the phrase structure rules presented in Chapter II with the following transformation rules: T1 (optional) : ((Xx -(Y) a -Z^S, -Coord - (X: -(W) a -Z 2 ) S2)S„ 1 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 6-7 => 1 — (2 — 4 —6)a — 3. T2 (optional): ((XL - (Y), -Zj) S - Coord - (Xx -(W) b - Z) S),S 1—2-3 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 =>1-2-3-4 -6-7. T3a (obligatory) a) Keg - ( + Indef)Z - - (X)V => 1 - 2 - (H 3)V. 1 2 - 3 P) (X)V . . . Neg — ( + Indef)Z => (2 — 1)V —2 — 3. ... 2 3 1 T3b (obligatory) If eg - ( + Indef )Z => 1 - (1 + 2). T3c (obligatory) : T4 (obligatory): T5 (obligatory) : T6 (obligatory) :

T7 (obligatory) T8 (obligatory)

1

-

2

— [Neg] => 2. 1 - 2 (Prep — iTeg — ( — Indef )X)PrepP = > 2 - 1 - 3 . 1 - 2 3 ]STE G — X — Y — Y = > 2 - 1 - 3 - 4 . 1 -2 - 3 - 4 (ISP — V — X — (Prep) - I n t - ( + Indef) W - Z ) S 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 —5 — 6 -7 => (4) — 5 - 6 - 2 - 1 - 3 - 7 . IJSTT — Sav - Nucleus - t =>3-4. 1 - 2 3 - 4 Neg

Nomina^- • • (relative - ((X) - 1 ^ ^ J 1

-

2 -

3

-

4

-

Nominal2( „Nominali, -Y)j~ k,^} S)Eel=> - 1 - 4 - 2 - 3 - 6 . 5- 6

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

154

T 9 (optional) :

—FI—

Nominal 1 -

-

AVE

3

-

— relative — N P 4

-

5

-

2 -3/Pos

—

6

- 6 .

7

N o m i n a l — ( G E L - r e l a t i v e -• N o m i n a l —FI 1

-

2

tive) Eel T l l a (obligatory) :

— (PE

(Nominal

-

E e l ) P r e d i c a t i v e => 1 -

A)

T10 (obligatory) :

2

-

3

—

4

—Predica-

-

5

-

6

= > 1 - 2 - 6 .

N o m i n a l — GEL 1

-

T l l b (optional) :

N o m i n a l — GEL

T12a (obligatory) :

Nominal -

1

-

1

— P o s — N o m i n a l , , =>

2

-

2

2

-

-

-

1 — 3 — 4 .

4

— Predicative

(DE

-

3

=>1—3.

3

-

a — Inf )E -

3

—

4

N P — Aux

-

5

—

6

-

Yerb

-

7

Y — 8

= > 1 - 2 - 3 - 7 + 4 - 5 - 8 . T12b

(obligatory)

Nominal —(Ger)E —Nominal — Aux 1

-

=>.1 - 5 T13 (obligatory) :

( +

2

+

—

n

1 -

-Impers +

2

= > 2 - 3 - 4 ((Suf

2

-

)Nmz

-

3

4

-

((Nominal -

7

-

n

—Flex

-

=>5 + GEL

-

1 +

4

- 3

-

PE 8

2 +

-

- ( A r t ) ) N P

— A u x

—

-

-

4

9

vb — 5

Impers

-

6

[PrepPi f ^ T I - A r t )

10

-

—

N P

11

1 1 - 3 - 9 - 1 0 .

- M e x -

X ) N P

- 4 - 5 .

Nominal -

-

n

5

- 1 0

3

2

2

C

- 5

9

relative - V e r b - S u f

Yerb -Suf -

-

— Pos)Nmz

2

7

1

-

8

—

X

-

- Y ) P r e d P

6

-( X ) Yerb -

T16 (obligatory) :

5

vb -Z)Verb)PredP)S

((Suf

1

Eefl - v b

3

(Posl j

-

-

T15 (obligatory) :

—

— 5.

- P l e x -

-

= > 8 + 1 + 2 + 1 0 (obligatory)

— Yerb —

4

(Aux - ( ( Y ) E e f l -

T14 b

-

2 - 6 .

Indef)NP - ( X 1

T14a (obligatory) :

3

3

3 -

—

-

4

j ^ } 4

n

-

-

Plex -

{ ^

= > 3 - 4 - 5 .

5 P

5

} = > 1

+ 2 + 3 - 5 .

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

T I 7 a (obligatory)

:

(XjNPi

- A u x

1

-

- V e r b 2

-

T17b (obligatory)

- A u x

1

-

2

+

-

2

-

CATRE-

B E

5

6

-

7 - 3 - 6 - 1 .

-

P E

3

-

- X P

2

- B E

-

5

-

4

2 — 3 —

CÄ TRE 6

6 — 1 .

7

—

A u x —Eefl - v b

(obligatory) :

- X P 4

- V e r b -

— Eefl =>5 — 7 +

T18

-

155

7

( X ^ P ,

:

P E

3

— F I + Part = > 5 - 2 —

RULES

1

-

2

-

3

- B E

CÄ

-

T B E —Impels 4

-

-(X)_

5

N P

6

-

= > 1 - 2 - 3 - 6 . T19al

(obligatory)

:

A j i — m d 1

T19aII

(obligatory)

-

2

— m d

—Prep

— R

— ( X P

-

-

-

-

3

4

—

6

- 5

X P ,

— m d — m d —Prep

— E

-

-

1

-

2

— Aj

2

—

t

3

4

)S=> 1 - 2

A j J S

-

8

- 6 .

-

- 4

V - 7

= > 2 - 3 - 1 - 4 — Y — Aj

- 7

5

5

-

—

6

(XPj - V

—

7

-

8

-

9

5 - 3 - 6 - 7 - 1 0

- 1 0 T19b

(obligatory)

:

m d

-

1

-

md, 2

- P r e p

-

E

-

-

-

4

-

3

( X P

-

5

V -

- X - m d J S 6

-

-

7

8

= > 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 6 - 5 - 7 . T20

— J1! — X P

Prep — E

(optional) :

1 T 2 1 (obligatory) :

-

2

A j — GEL 1

-

-

3

-

4

— M A I

2

-

= > 1 — 2 — 4 .

-

3

m d -

Prep -

X P

-

-

6

4

5

-

= > 2 - 3 - 4 - 1 - 5 - 6 . T22

(dintre — ( X o m i n a l

(optional) :

1 T23a

(obligatory)

:

T 2 3 b

(obligatory)

:

-

2

pronoun — Flex 1

-

( - [ -

. . .

2

- E e l ) X P ) M d => 1 -

. . .

3 A r t => 1

. . .

(obligatory) :

Art])X D e t -

X

-

-

2

( - [ — . . . Art])Prep ( + [ Predicative]) Verb

1 =>1 X — T24a

(optional)

:

1 —

—2.

3

1

T23c

- 2 .

Flex — Art -

3

-

= > 1 — 2

4

—(X — Flex —

-

2 -

3

-

A r t ) X P 4

- 2 - 3 . (+Plural)Flex 2

-

A r t — P r e d P => 1 - 2 - 4 . —

3

—

4

—3.

156

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L

T24b (optional) : V 1 -

PE 2

-

SYNTAX

| j

OF

ROMANIAN

J j N - A r t => 1 - 2 - 3. 3

— 4

T25 (obligatory) : X — Art — Pos — Y => 1 — 2 — 4 . 1 — 2 - 3 - 4 T26 (obligatory) :

- V - X -md -md 1 — 2 - 3 - 4 — 5

- P r e p - V -IsTP, - T —

6

-

7

- 8 - 9

-10

=>1-2-3-4-6-7-8-9-10. T27 (obligatory) : Y — PE — [ — Personal] = > 1 - 3 . 1 -

2 -

3

§ 30. CONSTITUENT COORDINATION

Let us assume that two sentences, Sj and S 2 , display the following properties : (a) they are partially identical; (b) those parts from S 1( S2 which are not identical are dominated in and S2 by the same node (that is, they are constituents of the same type). Let us consider, for example, the following sentences : (1) Ion citeste ziarul si Gheorghe citeste ziarul "John is reading the newspaper and George is reading the newspaper". (2) Elevul citeste si elevul scrie "the pupil is reading and the pupil is writing". (3) Eu vad m-uUi elevi si eu vad mulfi studenfi " I see many pupils a n d l see many students". In (1), the non-identical parts are the subjects Ion and Gheorghe; the remainder of the two coordinate sentences is identical: citeste ziarul "is reading the newspaper". I n each of the coordinate sentences of (1) Ion and Gheorghe are constituents of the subject-KP : (la) (((low)iTP ¡»of«i)PredP)S 2 )So.

(citeste

^ar#i)PredP)S 1

si

({Gheorghe)T$I>

(citeste

W e may, then, say Ion and Gheorghe are constituents of the same type. I n (2), citeste "is reading" and scrie "is writing" are the non-identical parts in the coordinated S,, S2 : (2a) (((elevul)NP (citeste)PredP)Sx si ((elevul)^P (sme)PredP)S 2 )S 0 and they should be considered constituents of the same type.

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RULES

157

In (3), the non-identical elevi "pupils" and studenft "students" are the heads of the direct object-iTP's : (3a) ( ( ^ N o m i n a ^ , aSTi^ ((vad) Vx (multi)I)et2 (elevi)!STominal2, N P a ) Y P 1 , PredP 1 )S 1 si ({eu) N"ominala, ]STP2 ((vad)V2 ((mulft) I)et 3 (studen\i) Nominal 3 ) NP 3 ) VP a ,'PredP 2 )S 2 . Expressions under ( l a ) —(3a) are equivalent to ( l b ) Ion si Gheorghe eitesc ziarul "John and George are reading the newspaper" (2b) Elevul cite§te si scrie "the pupil is reading and writing" (3b) Eu vad mulfi elevi §i studenji " I see many pupils and students", respectively. In ( l b ) —(3b) the constituents of the same type are coordinated (by si "and") and included in the same sentence. The relation between (la) —(3a), on the one hand, and ( l b ) —(3b), on the other hand, has to be expressed by a transformation rule which, once applied to a structure containing coordinate sentences, enables us to get a structure containing coordinate constituents (of the same type) T1 (optional) :

((X x - ( Y ) a - Z J Sx - C o o r d 1

2

3

4

- ( W ) . -Zx) 5

6

S2) S0

7

=> 1 — (2 — 4 — 6)a —3. In T l , X and Z stand for the identical parts of Sx, S a ; one but not both of the strings they represent may be empty. The subscript 'a' under the brackets including Y and W is the symbol from which Y and W are derived by application of some definite rule(s) of the grammar; in other words, 'a' stands for symbols like N P , Y P , Nominal, etc. Since any # S # may be rewritten as # S # Coord # S # (see above § 7, CI), it follows that a sentence containing two or more coordinated constituents is, in principle, a case of what is called "syntactic homonymy". For example, a sentence like (4) El spune ca Ion vine si pleaca miine "he says that John comes and leaves tomorrow" may be obtained by applying T l either to (4a) El spune ca Ion vine miine si el spune ca Ion pleaca miine "he says that John comes tomorrow and he says that John leaves tomorrow" or to

1

M a n c a ; ( 1 9 6 7 ) states a d i f f e r e n t c o o r d i n a t i o n r u l e ; h o w e v e r the rule she proposes lias the

d i s a d v a n t a g e of blurring

t h e distinction b e t w e e n t h e c o n s t i t u e n t c o o r d i n a t i o n p r o p e r and w h a t

w e are g o i n g t o call b e l o w " p s e u d o - c o o r d i n a t i o n of

constituents".

158

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL

S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

(4b) El spune ca Ion vine mtine si Ion pleaca miine "he says that John comes tomorrow and John leaves tomorrow". In some cases the differences among "derivative histories" may correspond to some special relations among coordinate constituents (differences which, at the level of surface structure, might be expressed by some specific behaviour of the coord inative conjunction or by some intonational features). A sentence like (5) El spune ca Ion a venit, a dormit ?i a plecat "he says that John came, slept, and left" may be derived by T1 either from : ((el spune ca Ion a dormit) S3 si (5a) {(el spune ca Ion a venit)si (el spune ca Ion a plecat)S4)S2)S0, or from : (5b) (((el spune ca Ion a venit)si (el spune ca Ion a dormit)S2)S3 si (el spune ca Ion a plecat)^^S0, or from : (5c) (((ei)iTP ((spune)Y (ca ((Ion a venit)S4 si Ion a dormit)S5)S3) £TP) YP, P r e d P ^ si ((el) STP ((spune)V (ca (Ion a plecat) S 6 ) NT)VP, PredP)S 2 )S 0 , or from : (5d) (((eZ)N'P ((spune)Y (ca (Ion a w m i ^ S r P J Y P ^ r e d P J S j ((d)KP ((spune)V (ca ((Ion a dormit)S5 si (Ion a 2>7emi)S6)S4);N"P)VP, PredP)S 2 )S 0 . If (5) is underlied by (5b) or (5c), then constituents a venit "came" and a dormit "slept" are mutually more related than each of them to a plecat "left" ; if (5) is underlied by (5a) or (5d), constituents a dormit and a plecat are mutually more related than each of them to a venit. The contrast between : (6) Elevii si elevele, studenfii si studentele citesc ziarul "the pupils (masc.) and the pupils (fem.), the students (masc.) and the students (fem.) are reading the newspaper" and (7) Elevii, elevele, studenfii si studentele citesc ziarul "the pupils (masc.), the pupils (fem.), the students (masc.) and the students (fem.) are reading the newspaper", is to be explained by the fact that they have two different derivative histories. (6) is derived by T1 from : (6a) (((elevii citesc ziarul)S3 si (elevele citesc ziarul)Hi)iil si ((studenfii citesc ziarul)S5 si (studentele citesc 2ian(?)S6)S2)S0 as well as (7) is derived either from :

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RULES

159

(7a) ((elevii citesc ziarul)S3 si ((elevele citesc ziarul)S5 si (studenfii citesc ziarul)S6)S4)S],) si (studentele citesc ziarul)S2)S0, or : (7b) {(((elevii citesc ziarul)&5 si (elevele citesc ziarul)S6)S3 si (studenfii citesc ziarul)8i)S1 si (studentele citesc ziarul)S2)S0, or : (7c) ((elevii citesc ziarul)si (((elevele citesc ziarul)S5 si (studenfii citesc ziarul)S6)S3 si (studentele citesc ziarul)S4)S2)S0, or : (7d) ((elevii citesc ziarul)Sj^ si ((elevele citesc ziarul)S3 si ((studenfii citesc ziarul)S6 si (studentele citesc ziarul)S6)S4)S2)S0. The possible derivation from the underlying either (7a), or (7b), or (7c), or (7d), explains the various ways of phrasing the enumeration of the coordinate constituents 2 ; these multiple possibilities of phrasing are mostly determined by the distribution of pauses within the sentence. We shall symbolize by 'I a short pause, and by ' II a longer pause. To the derivation from 7(a) there would correspond: (7a') elevii | elevele, studenfii || §i studentele, to the derivation from (7b) there would correspond : (7b') elevii, elevele \ studenfii \\ §i studentele, to the derivation from (7c) there would correspond : (7c') elevii || elevele, studenfii | si studentele and to the derivation from (7d) there would correspond : (7d') elevii || elevele | studenfii si studentele. Pseudo-coordinations 3 . Sometimes, conjunction si "and" may stand between constituents which are not of the same type 4 . This particular use of Eom. si is displayed by constructions like : (8) El merge cu oricine si oriunde lit. "he goes with everybody and everywhere" (9) El si acasa a venit lit. "he and at home came" (10) Cine, cind, cum si unde pleaca lit. "Who, when, how and where leaves". In (8) si occurs between the sociative complement cu oricine "with everybody" and the place adverbial oriunde "everywhere". Because 2

Various possibilities of grouping coordinate constituents in English were analysed by

J.ila Gleitman ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; were

the

multiple ways of grouping coordinate constituents in Romanian

accounted for by Manca?

(1967).

3

See the same topic treated in Manca? (1967).

4

Gramatica (1963), II, pp. 79, 216, 217.

160

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL

SYNTAX

OF

ROMANIAN

(8) —(10) display only a surface structural identity with coordination proper, we used the term "pseudo-coordination" as referred to such constructions. The transformation rule by means of which constructions like (8) — (10) can be obtained is a simple rule deleting within a sentence S, the constituents which are "copies" of the constituents occurring within a sentence 'S,', when Sj and S, are members of the larger construction ((S,) and (Sj))S. T2 (optional) :

( ( X : —(Y) a - Z ^ S j -Coord - (X 2 - (W) b - Z x ) S2)S 1 - 2 - 3 =>1

-

4

-

5

-

6

-

7

- 2 - 4 - 6 — 7.

In T2, like in T l , we have either X x or Z1 but not both may be empty. In order to obtain sentences (8) —(10), rule T2 should be applied to the underlying : (8a) (((eZJNominal!, lSP)((merge)V ((cw-)Prep (oncme )]STominal2irP) PrepP)) VP, PredPJSi si ((el)H(ominal^, K P {{merge)Y, Y P {oriunde)AvP) PredP)S a )S 0 , (9a) (((ei)iTominal, N P ((a)Aux (»e)ui)Verb),V,VP ; PredP)S 1 a venit)S2)S0 ,

si {el acasa

(10a) {{{cine pleaca)S3 si {cind pleaca)S4)S1 si {{cum pleaca)Ss si {unde pleaca)S6)Sa)S0. I t is obvious that T l , 2 are to be applied cyclically. I t is also to be noticed that T2 can be applied after the inversion rule (which is optional) by means of which the A v P is put in front of the verb (in (9a)) and after the transformation rule dealing with interrogatives (in (10a)); see § 32.

§ 31. NEGATIVIZATION Like other languages, Romanian has two negation types : a) the t o t a l negation (by means of which the full sentence is denied) like in : (1) Ion nu cite§te cartea "John does not read the book" and b) t h e p a r t i a l negation (by means of which one or more of the sentence constituents are denied), like i n : (2) Nimeni nu citeste cartea "nobody is reading the book" or, (3) Nimeni nu citeste nimic "nobody is reading anything", (4) Ion nu cite§te nimic "John is not reading anything".

in.

TRANSFORMATION

RULES

161

We shall go into the details of the relation between total and partial negation below 6 . The most characteristic feature for Romanian — with respect to negation — is the system of double negation, that is the fact that the presence of a negative word (like nimeni "nobody", niciodatd "never", nicaieri "nowhere", etc.) automatically determines the occurrence of the negation nu in front of the verb. This double negation is obviously a feature belonging to what glossematics calls "expression" 6 and has no semantic significance. In other words, nu in front of the verb together with an item from the class (nimeni, nimic, etc.) can be interpreted as a kind of "discontinuous morpheme" 7. The fact becomes obvious if we have in mind that sentences like (2) or (3) are not understood as negated negative sentences, that is as affirmative sentences, but as plain negations of sentences : (2a) Oineva cite§te cartea "somebody is reading the book", (4a) Ion cite§te ceva "John is reading something". On the other hand, a sentence with double negation like (5) Ion nu merge nic&ieri "John is not going anywhere" is understood as affirmative when it is negated: (6) Nu Ion nu merge nic&ieri (ci Gheorghe nu merge nicaieri) "it is not John who is not going anywhere (but it is George who is not going anywhere)". Partial negation. The status of negative words like nimeni "nobody", nimic "nothing", etc. was presented in connection with rule C7. One can easily see that a sentence may involve more than one denied constituent, like i n : (7) Nimeni nu citeste nimic nicaieri "nobody is reading anything, anywhere", underlied by : flndef |Ifominal)]SrP)VP) ((Neg)Det ( J S ^ ]av) AvP) PredP)S. —Animate V +Place / 5

In spite of the fact that the basic principles governing Romanian negation are very similar to those of Klinia (1964), the grammar of Romanian negation differs from that of English in many respects, especially, at the transformational level. The differences belong then to the surface structure; indeed, at this level, English negation involves the special use of auxiliaries, whereas Romanian does not involve such a thing, but displays the device of double negation, which is unknown to English. « Hjelmslev (1963), pp. 4 7 - 6 0 , 75. 7 In the sense of Harris (1963), pp 166, 182, 205.

162

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

It should be noticed that, in spite of the fact sentence (7) contains three denied constituents, in front of the verb one and only one negation, nu, is allowed. The above described status of partial negation suggests the following way of representing it in terms of a transformational device : (a) a rule saying that if a sentence contains one or more denied constituents, the negation item has to be copied in front of the verb ; (b) a rule by means of which sequences of the form Neg — [ -f Indef ] become

'

(c) a rule deleting negation before an item semantically characterized by

Keg The rules mentioned under (a) —(c) are the following :

T3a (obligatory) : a) Keg - [ + Indef]Z - (X)V => 1 - 2 - ( 1 +3)V 2 - 3 1 P) (X)V...Neg - [+Indef)Z=> (2 + l ) V - 2 - 3 1 2 3 Rule T3a is to be applied in one of the above specified two variants : variant a, when the denied constituent precedes the verb ; variant p, when the denied constituent is after the verb. T3b (obligatory) : Neg - ( + Indef) Z => 1 - (1 + 2 ) . 1 2 T3c (obligatory) : Neg — Neg ->2. 1

2

I t is worth mentioning that if a sentence contains more than one denied [ -f Indef] constituent, rule T3a has to be applied only once, because, as a result of applying T3a, we obtain a sequence of the form Neg —V, and this structure does not fall into the range of T3a. If the denied constituent is not characterized by [ +Indef ], none of the rules T3a, b, c is to be applied. Applying T3aa to (7a) we get : (7b) (((Neg) D e t J + ^ ^ j N o m i n a l J N P (((Neg + citeste)Y ((Neg)Det (iIn1mate)¥°minal)NP)

VP((Neg)Det

(Av)AvP)PredP)S.

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

163

RULES

Applying, further, three times T3b to (7b), we get I +Indef \ (7c) (((Neg) Det +Animate Nominal) N P (((Neg +citeste)V ((Neg)Det V Neg ) +Indef \ [ +Indef\ —Animate Nominal)NP)VP ((Neg) Det +Place Av) AvP)PredP)S Neg J V Neg Applying to (7c) first T3b and afterwards some rules enabling us to give the sets marked by [ + I n d e f ] , their proper phonemic shape, we g e t : (7d) ((nimeni)lSF ((nu citeste)Y (mmic)NP)YP (nicaieri) AvP)PredP) S. If the negated constituent is not characterized by [ + I n d e f ] , like in (8) Nu elevul cite§te cartea "it is not the pupil who is reading the book", with an underlying structure which is roughly (8a) (((Neg) Det (elevul)Nominal)NP ((citeste)V (cartea) NP)YP, P r e d P ) S rules T3a—c do not apply. I t seems pretty obvious that sentences containing more than one denied constituents which are not characterized by [ +Indef ], are non-grammatical in Romanian. This restriction has to be expressed at the lexical level: the rule which specifies the proper lexical item dominated by the symbol Neg has to be applied only once within a sentence. In such a way, a structure of the form : (9) ((Neg) Det (eZewi)Nominal)NP ((citeste)V ((Neg) Det (cartea) Nominal NP) YP,PredP) S . could never be actualized as surface structure, because one of its Negsymbols is not associated with some phonemic shape. On the other hand, when the denied constituent which is not [ -f Indef], is member of a PrepP, a specific transformational rule is needed. Indeed, in Romanian a sentence like (10) *Ion locuie§te in nu casa lui is ungrammatical. The grammatical form is : (10a) Ion locuieste nu in casa lui "it is not in his house that John lives". We have then to state a rule which moves the symbol Neg in front of the preposition-constituent of a prepositional phrase : T4 (obligatory): (Prep — Neg - ( — Indef )X) PrepP = > 2 - 1 — 3 1 — 2 3

I

Total negation. We say a sentence is totally denied when negation N E G is dominated by the sentence adverbial (SAv). Leaving aside the features which are not relevant for our discussion, a sentence like

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

164

(11) Mevul nu citeste cartea "the pupil is not reading the b o o k " has the following underlying structure : (11a) ( ( N E G ) S A v (elevul citeste cariea)Nucleus)S. Since within a totally denied sentence the negation morpheme stands in front of the verb, a rule to the effect of moving the constituent N E G in front of the verb is needed : T5 (obligatory) : ( N E G ) - X - V - Y = > 1 — 2 —3 - 4 .

2 - 1 - 3 - 4

The underlying (11a) becomes (11) as a result of applying T5. One should notice that T5 applies even in case the underlying structure contains a denied constituent non-marked by the feature [ + I n d e f ] , in other words, a constituent marked by [ —Indef]. The underlying structure of (12) Nu elevul nu citeste cartea " i t is not the pupil who is not reading the b o o k " is obtained by applying T5 to an underlying : (12a) ( ( N E G ) S A v ( ( N E G ) Det (elevul) Nominal {(citeste)V (cartea) N P ) V P , PredP)Nucleus)S. When the nucleus contains one or more denied [ - f l n d e f ] -constituents, the formative nu cannot be used for denying the whole sentence; in other words, a sentence like (13) Mevul nu cite§te nimic "the pupil is not reading anything" cannot be denied by simply prefixing nu to the verb, because the verb has already prefixed negation nu as a result of applying rule T3a. The only grammatical way of denying (13) is a negative periphrase of nu, that is : nu e adevarat m or este fals ca " i t is not true t h a t " or " i t is false that", respectively. Moreover, phrases like nu e adevarat ca or este fals ca cannot be prefixed to the verb, but have to be kept in front of the nucleus. In order to account for these features, we have to take the following way : symbol N E G (dominated by S A v ) has to be replaced by nu if and only if the Nucleus does not contain any N e g denied [ - f l n d e f ] -constituent and by one of the periphrases nu e adevarat ca, este fals c& if Nucleus does contain such a N e g denied [ - f I n d e f ] -constituent. Accordingly, within the underlying structure : (14) ((NEG)SAv(eZewZ)NP ( e ^ s i e ) V ((Neg) Det (

+Indef

)Nominal

-(- A ill nri EitiG (NP)VP,PredP)Nucleus)S, the symbol N E G cannot be replaced by nu, but only by nu e adevarat ca or e fals ca.

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RULES

165

Now, since T5 requires a structure containing negation nu as sentence adverbial, it follows t h a t an underlying structure like (14) does not go through rule T5.

§ 32. INTERROGATIVIZATION

There are two kinds of interrogative sentences in Romanian, like in other languages: (a) interrogatives requiring a yes/no answer ( = total interrogatives); (b) interrogatives requiring an answer which substitutes an item marked by [ —Indef ] for the questioned part of the sentence ( = partial interrogatives). The first category may be exemplified by a sentence like: (1) Elevul merge la scoala? "Does the pupil go to school?" (where the required answer is da "yes" or nu "no"). The second category may be exemplified by a sentence like : (2) TJnde merge elevul? "Where is the pupil going?" (where the answer might be la scoala "to school", acasa "home", acolo "there", etc., that is any place adverbial phrase which may be substituted for unde "where" from (2)). I t seems obvious that a sentence cannot belong both to (a) and (b), a t the same time. The formal mark of the interrogatives belonging to the first category is the rising tone at the end of the sentence (and this intonation contrasts with the intonation of the assertive sentences) 8 ; the intonation of partial interrogative is identical to that of assertive sentences, that is with falling tone at the end of the sentence 9. The two possibilities of questioning were described in terms of rules 03 and 07 ; symbol I N T dominated by the sentence adverbial SAv is the sign of the total questioning; symbol I n t dominated by Det is the sign of partial questioning and, at the same time, it refers to some definite grammatical function of the questioned constituent. I n t may be put in front of a Nominal, an Av, an Aj and this means t h a t the question concerns the nominal (which may be subject, object, predicative or member of an adverbial phrase) the adjective, the adverb, etc. We impose to our grammar the following restriction : (3) A sentence is allowed to contain one and only one questioned constituent. 8 9

E. Vasiliu (1965), p. 81, Ibidem.

166

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

In agreement with (3), a sentence like (4) Cine pe cine vede% "Who sees whom?" has to be accounted for by means of rule T2, which describes the false coordination. The above proposed approach to sentences of the form (4) is supported by the fact that, in cases like (4), the coordinative conjunction may explicitly occur : (4') Cine $i pe cine vede? literally "Who and whom sees?". In the same way, (5) Cine, unde se duce? "Who is going where?" may also appear in the form : (5') Cine §i unde se duce ? literally "Who and where is going ?" Notice that sentences belonging to the pairs (4)—(4'), (5)—(5') are perfectly synonymous. The partial interrogatives are characterized by the fact the questioned constituent is always placed in front of the sentence, with no respect to the syntactic function of the questioned constituent. On the other hand, in the case of this type of interrogation the subject (when non-questioned) is always moved somewhere after the verb (that it not necessarily immediately after the verb). That is, we have either : (6) Unde cite§te Ion cartea? "Where is John reading the book?", or, (6') Unde cite§te cartea Ion1!, but never : (6") *Unde Ion cite§te cartea? When the questioned constituent is the head of a prepositional phrase, the preposition is put in front of the sentence, together with the questioned constituent : (7) Be unde vine Ionl "From where comes John?" is derived from an underlying : (7') (ion)NP((wne)VP) ((de)Prep (Int),Det ( j ^ ^ J j A d v ) P r e p P , A v P ) , PredP)S +Indefl where the questioned constituent, +PlaceJ'

hea(4) —5 - 6 - 2 - 1 —3 - 7 .

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RUI.ES

167

According to T6, the interrogative is put in front of the sentence and the subject is moved immediately after the verb. A further optional, perhaps stylistic, rule (which will not be specified in our grammar) would account for the fact the subject may be located in some other place after the verb. That means, what we obtain applying T6 is only a sentence of the form (6); a sentence of the form (6') is to be obtained by another rule, of the type above mentioned. The occurrence of more than one questioned constituent within the surface structure of the same sentence (see above, restriction (3)) is avoided just by the form in which T6 is stated : if the underlying sentence would contain more than one constituent, only one of them could be repositioned by T6, because the structure obtained by applying once T6 does no longer fall into the range of the structures T6 is to be applied to. Since T6 is obligatory, these structures containing at least one questioned constituent which is not put in front of the sentence, will not be considered as underlying some surface structure. On the other hand, T6 does not apply if the Nucleus is preceded by a questioned sentence adverbial (because the input of the rule does not specify the possible occurrence of such an adverb). That means, if a construction contains at the same time a questioned sentence adverbial and a questioned constituent within the Nucleus, it does not undergo T6 and, consequently, its questioned constituent cannot be put in front of the sentence. Exactly like in case of the sentences containing more than one questioned constituent, this latter kind of structure can not underlie some actual surface structure. The questioned sentence adverb is to be kept throughout the derivation until the sentence is assigned the rising intonational contour. After this assignment, sentence adverbial is deleted, by means of the subsequent rule : T7 (obligatory) : INT — SAv - N u c l e u s — t => 3 - 4 1 - 2 - 3 - 4. A sentence like (1) has the following underlying structure (the irrelevant features of the structure are left aside) : (la) (((INT)Det ([ +Indef])Av)SAv (elevul merge la £coaZa)Nucleus)S. After assigning the rising intonational contour, (la) becomes (lb) (((INT)Det([+Indef])Av)SAv (elevul merge la scoala t )Nucleus)S. Eule T7 is then applied to (lb) and we obtain : (lc) Elevul merge la scoala f •

168

T H E TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

§ 33. RELATIVIZATION "Relativization" is meant here to be an obligatory transformational rule whose input is a structure dominated by the symbol Eel. This operation has two results : a) the deletion in the relative clause of the nominal which is coreferential with the nominal the relative clause determines; b) if the nominal which undergoes deletion is preceded by a preposition, this preposition is moved in front of the relative item which introduces the relative clause. The relativization rule has the following form : T8 (obligatory) : Nomina^ . . . (relative - ((X) - j ! I ("reP)j

-

1 2 3 4 - Nominal2(.Nominali) - ( Y tL~ CEo o r dx/ ) S) Rel=> 1 - 4- - 2 - 3 - 6 ; 5 6 i~ R I (subscript (i o o r ( jj m e a n s that constituent (or sequence of constituents) Y can rewrite neither the category R nor the category Coord ; subscript ( = Kominalj) is intended to express the condition of referential identity of the two nominals). Phrases (1) elevul like care : alearga "the pupil who is running", (2) elevul despre care tu vorbesti "the pupil you are speaking about", (3) elevul la care tu mergi "the pupil to which you are going" are derived by T7 from the following underlying structures (the irrelevant features are left aside): (1') ((eZeiniZ)liominali ((care)R ((elevul)Nomina^ (aleargX)PredP) S)Rel) NP, (2') ((elevul)Nominal)j( (care)R ((tu) IsP((vorbesti)Y ((clespre) Prep (elevul) Kominal 2 )PrepP)YP,PredP)S)Rel)iTP, (3') ((eZewZ)Nominal! ((care)R ((tu)T$P ((mergi)YP ((la) Prep (elevul) Nominal2 )Pr epP )Pr edP) S) R el) NP. Structures like (4) ((eZewZ)ifominal! ((care)R ((elevul) Nominal 2 ) (care)~R> ((tu) NT ((vezi) Y (elevul) Nominal3)VP, PredP)S a )Rel)iTP ((merge)YP ((Za)Prep (?coala) NP) PrePJPredPJSJRel^P do not undergo T7, since the constituent which follows immediately after the second occurrence of elevul is an element beloging to the class R, and then (4) does not underlie any surface structure.

III. TRANSFORMATION

RULES

169

In a similar way, a structure like (5) ((eZew^iTominal! {{care)E ((eZeim?)iTominal2 {§i) Coord {studentul) N P ({citesc)Y ((o)Det (carie)¥ominal)IsTP) V P , PredP)S)Rel)iiP does not go through T8, because the second occurrence of elevul is immediately followed by a constituent which is a coordinative conjunction, and then (5) does not underlie any surface structure. § 33 a. "SUM PRO HABEO" TRANSFORMATION

The meaning of a sentence like (6) Casa este a vecinului "The house is that of (my) neighbour" can be roughly described as asserting an identity between the object referred to by casa and the object referred to by a vecinului, where a stands for the noun casa; in other words (6) is equivalent to (6') Casa este casa vecinului "The house is the house of the neighbour". On the other hand, the phrase casa vecinului expresses a definite relation between casa "the house" and vecinului "of the neighbour" ; this relation is that described by (7) Casa pe care vecinul o are "the house which the neighbour owns". In agreement with the above remarks, we can assume that (6) says the same thing as (8) Casa este casa pe care vecinul o are "the house is the house which the neighbour owns". The underlying form of (8) is obviously : (8') ((casa)iTP ((este)Y ((casa)E'ominal1 {{care)E {(vecinul)NP {{are) V {casa) irominal 2 ,NP)Y,PredP)S 1 )Eel)Predicative)YP, PredP)S 0 . Applying to (8') rule T8, we obtain (8 'a) ((casa)iTP {{este)Y {{casa)NT {{pe care)E {vecinul o are)S 1 )Eel)Predicative)YP,PredP)S 0 . (8'a) is the underlying form of (8). In order to obtain from any structure of the type (8'a) a surface structure of the form (6), we have to lay down the following transformation rule : T9 (optional):

Nomina^ — F I — (Nominal! — (PE — relative — N P — 1 - 2 3 - 4 - 5 6 — A Y E A ) Eel) Predicative = > 1 - 2 - 3 / P o s - 6 . 7

The symbol 3/Pos expresses the fact that constituent 3 (Nominal!), if identical with the subject-nominal, is to be replaced by the symbol Pos. Obviously, T9 must be applied after T8, by which the input of T9 is derived.

170

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

§ 33 b. ATTRIBUTIVIZATION

We call a t t r i b u t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s those constructions in which the head is determined not by a relative clause, but by a noun or pronoun in the genitive as well as by a prepositional phrase. These constructions are assumed to be underlied by constructions containing a nominal head determined by a relative copula-clause preceded by GEL, which is viewed here as a kind of symbol requiring attributivization to be applied ("nominalizer"). The Predicative of the copula relative-clause is an adjective, a noun (or pronoun) in the genitive or a prepositional phrase. . The underlying structures of the phrases : (9) cerul {eel) albastru "the sky (that) blue" (10) casa vecinului "the house of the neighbour" (11) casa (cea) de lemn "the house (that) of wood" are : (9') ((cerul) Nominal! ((GEL CARE) E ((cm/i) Nominal, ((este) V (albastru) Predicative)VP,PredP)S)Rel)NP, (10') ((msa)Nominali((Oi/i GARE)R {(casa) Nominal^este) V(a vecinu?w)Predicative)VP,PredP)S)Eel)NP (11') ((casa)Nomina^ ((GELCARE)E ((casa)Nomina^((este)Y((de)Prep (ieww)NP)PrepP,Predicative )VP,PredP)S)Rel)NP respectively. The transformation allowing the derivation of phrases of the type (9)—(10) from the underlying (9')—(11') is the following: T10 (obligatory) : Nominal! —(GEL —relative . . . —Nominal! —FI — 1 2 3 - 4 - 5 Predicative)Rel => 1 —2 - 6 . 6

It is obvious that structure (10') is the output of rule T9 (sum pro habeo) and, consequently, we have to order T9 before T10; one should notice then that the deeper underlying structure of (10) is not just (10') but something like : ( 1 0 " ' ) (casa)Nominal! ((GEL CARE)E ((casa) Nominal! (este) (casa) Nominal! ((GARE) B((®mmtZ)Nominal2 ((are)V (casffl)Nominal1)YP PredP) 8 2 )Eel 2 )Si)Eel!. Applying T10 to (9')-(10'), we get: ( 9 " ) cerul eel albastru "the sky (that) blue" (10") *casa cea a vecinului "the house (that) of the neighbour" (11") casa cea cle lemn "the house (that) of wood".

III. TRANSFORMATION

RULES

171

that is constructions containing the particle cel. As it is shown in (9) — (11), the presence of eel is optional in (9) and (11) and is not allowed in (10) (see the starred form ( 1 0 " ) ) . W e have then to lay down two deletion rules : an obligatory one, dealing with OEL followed by Pos and an optional one, dealing with CEL in the other environments : T l l a (obligatory) : Nomina^ — CEL - Pos — iJominal2 = > 1 — 3 — 4 1 — 2 3 4 T l l b (optional) :

Nominal — OEL — Predicative = > 1 — 3 1 2 3.

The status of the symbol Pos is determined by rule T25 (see below) according to which Pos is deleted when preceded by the definite article (of the preceding noun). I n agreement with this rule, construction : (10 " a ) *casa a vecinului, resulting from T l l a becomes (10), whereas a construction like : (10 " b ) aceasta casa a vecinului "this neighbour's house" is not supposed to go through rule T25. A structure like (12) casa a carei fereastra este deschisa "the house the window of which is open" points to the fact that attributivization (T10) must be applied before relativization ( T 8 ) ; on the other hand, T10 has to be preceded by T9 sum pro habeo. Indeed, (12) is underlied by (12a)((casa)N'ominal 1 ( ( C A B E ) B ((fereastra casei)NP (este deschisa)~PredF) SjJBel^NP to which T8 is applied. But (12a) is the output of rule T10 (attributivization) whose input is (12b) ((casa)Nomuia^ ( ( O A B E ) B ((fereastra):Nomina^ ((OEL C A E E ) B ((/ereasira)Nominal 2 ((este)Y ((A)Pos (casei)N'ominal 1 )Ii*P)yP,PredP) S 2 ) EeL, ((este)Y (descMsa)Predicative)YP,PredP)S 1 )Eel 1 )iI'P. A t the same time, (12b) is the output of rule T9 applied to a structure containing the verb avea instead of the verb fi (occurring in (12b)).

§ 33 C. INFINITIVIZATION,

GERUND1VIZATION

The attributes expressed by infinitival and gerundival constructions may be viewed as particular instances of attributivization : the transformation is determined in these cases by the constituents Ger or D E ~ A ~ I n f dominated by the node E .

172

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

A construction like (13) faptul de a pleca (Ion) miine "the fact of John's leaving tomorrow" is underlied by : 13') (faptul) Nominal ( ( D E - A - I n f ) E ((Ion) Nominal (((MT) Aux (pleca) Verb)V,VP (mune)AvP)PredP)S)Eel. The transformation to be applied to (13') provides the deletion of the symbols dominated by Aux and the suffixation of the symbol Inf to the symbol Verb. Since a construction like (13") *faptul de a Ion pleca miine is not grammatical, the transformation should also provide the subjectpredicate inversion. The general form of such a rule will then be : T12a (obligatory) : Nominal -(DE —a - I n f ) R —NP - A u x —Verb —Y 1 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 -8 =>1-2-3 -7 + 4-5-8. Obviously, if the verb has a (direct) object, the subject has to be inserted, in agreement with (12a), between the verb and its (direct) object. Eule (12a) allows only constructions like : (14) faptul de a citi Ion cartea miine "the fact of John's reading the book tomorrow", and never constructions like : (14') faptul de a citi cartea Ion miine. If the grammar is wanted to allow constructions like (14') at all, it has to be provided at the stylistic level with an optional rule, enabling us to move the subject from its position immediately after the verb. As far as we are concerned with gerundive constructions, we have to mention that they are in many cases syntactically ambiguous. In a sentence like (15) Ion vede pe Gheorghe mergind pe strada, the gerundival phrase (15a) mergind pe strada "walking in the street" may be understood either as a determiner of the object Gheorghe or as an adverbial phrase determining the VP of (15), that is (15b) vede pe Gheorghe "(John) sees George". The meaning of (15) would be either (15c) "John sees George who is walking in the street", or (15d) "While John is walking in the street, he sees George". In (15a), mergind pe strada is dominated by Eel which determines Gheorghe, in (15d), the same phrase is dominated by AvP determining the VP.

III. TRANSFORMATION RULES

173

A sentence like (16) Copilul jucindu-se pe strada a auzit un zgomot may be understood either as (16a) "the child who was playing in the street heard a noise", or as (16b) " t h e child heard a noise, while he was playing in the street. Here again the gerundival phrase may be understood either as an attributive determiner of the subject copilul "the child" or as an adverbial determiner of the verbal phrase a auzit "heard". The underlying structure for meanings (15c), (16a) is (15") ((Zoji)NP (vede)V(pe Gheorghe)Nommai1 ((Ger)H((Gheorghe) Nomina^ (merge)VP ((pe)Prep (strada)lSP)AvP)S1)Eel)Sn, (16") ((copilul) Nomina^ ((Ger)R ((co^iiw, i)Nominalj (se juca)YP ((pe) Prep(strad&)T$P)AvP) S) Rel (((a)Aux (auzit)Verb) V((wi)Det (zgomot) Nominal) NP) PredP)S„. The transformation rule enabling us to get sentences like (15), (16) from underlying structures like (15"), (16") is : T12b

(obligatory) : Nominal! —( Ger)R 1

-

2

— Nominal! — Aux — Verb — X —

3

— 4 — 5 — 6

=>1-5+2-6. The result of applying T12b is the suffixation of the constituent Ger to the verb and the deletion of the subject of the relative clause (necessarily identical to the noun determined by the relative clause) and of the auxiliary constituents of the verb. Deriving (15), (16) from (15"), (16") by means of T12b is quite different from deriving (15), (16) from structures like ( 1 5 " ' ) ((Ion) ITP((«eflte)y (pe Gheorghe)^P

((Ger)Conj ( ( ^ J ^ ^ J n p

(((MT) Aux (merge)Verb)\P ((pe)Prep (s 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 =>8 + 1 + 2 + 1 0 - 3 - 4 - 5 . Eule T14a deletes the symbols Aux, SE (dominated by reflexive), and Z which, according to C17 is the augment and/or the theme vowel; the deletion of the reflexive is justified by the fact the reflexive pronoun is not kept in nominalized constructions; the auxiliary is deleted, because the nominal derived from the verb does not display any mood and tense feature; obviously, Y and Z may be empty and so may X , standing for a possible Eel. T14b (obligatory): ((Suf„ — Flex — PosJNmz —(Aux — vb — Inrpers — 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - (X)) Verb - P E -Nominal - j ^ p 1 * } - Art)NP - 7 - 8 - 9 - 1 0 => 5 + 1 +2 +11 - 3 - 9 - 1 0 .

- 1 1

Eule T14b deletes symbols Aux, Impers, Aug and/or Sa ( = X ) for the same reason as T14a; symbol PE (mark of the direct accusative object) is deleted since, when the accusative object becomes attribute (in the genitive) of the nominalized verb, it does no longer take PE within the surface structure. It is to be noticed that rule T14b does not provide any repositioning of the nominal (with respect to the nominalized verb), as the accusative object occurs normally, after the verb.

178

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL

S Y N T A X OF

ROMANIAN

A nominal phrase like : (.11) cititul cartilor la scoala is to be derived from the underlying : (11') ([+Indef])!SrP (((MT)Aux ((Impers) Eefl (dii)vb)Yerb)V PE (carfile) NP)VP ((Za)Prep (.S'coaM)NP)PrepP by T13, which deletes the indefinite subject, and T14b, which transforms sentence (11') into the nominal phrase (11). It is obvious that the input of T14b is the output of T13. A nominal phrase like : (12) gindul men la tine is to be derived by T14a from the underlying (((MT)Aux-((ma)Refl (12') ((Sufn — Elex — Pos)Nmz ((eu)Rominal (gmdese)vb)Veib)V ((la)Prep (iwe)JSTP)PrepP)YP, PredP)S)Nominal. A phrase like : (13) studenfii iubitori de muziea "the music lover students" is underlied by (13') (studentii)NPj ((GEL -GARE)ii(Suf „ — Flex -DE)Jimz ((studentii^PM^TjAux — (iubi)Yerb)V PE(wii«ica)NP)VP, PredP) S)Eel. To (13') the relativization rule (T8) should be applied. The result of this rule is the deletion of the NP! from the relative clause. In order to obtain from the output of T8 the phrase (13) we have to apply further T14b and another transformation, deleting the constituents CEL and CARE of E when they occur in front of a nominalized verb. We should then lay down the following transformation : T15 (obligatory) : GEL — relative — Yerb — Sufn — Flex = > 3 - 4 - 5 1 - 2 3 4 - 5 . Some nominalizing suffixes, like -bil, are selected when and only when the Y P of the embedded sentence contains the auxiliary A 2 putea and the mark Pas ( = passive). The underlying structure of the phrase: (14) bolile tratabile "treatable diseases" is (14') ((fcoiiZe)Nomina^ (((OE-L -CARE

-(Sufn-Flex -

j

J)Nmz)E

((bolile) Nominal! — (((MT) Ax (pot) A 2 + (F1 + Part))Aux (trata) Yerb)VP, PredP)S)Eel)NP. By relativization (T8) the subject-nominalt from the relative clause is deleted; then T14b is applied; the result of T14b is the suffixation of the

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

179

RULES

constituent Nmz to the verb. B y T15 the constituents GEL relative are deleted. I n order to obtain (14), we need a rule deleting symbols Pos or DE when followed by a PrepP or an A v P (that means when followed by constituents which do not go through nominalization). The general form of this rule would be : T16 (obligatory) : Verb — Sufn — Flex — 1

-

2

-

3

-

AvP

=>1+2+3-5.

4

Eule T16 is intended to account not only for structures like (14) but for any nominalized verb which is not followed by a modifier resulting from a subject or a direct object; in other words, T16 accounts also for phrases like : (15) plimbarea de dimineafa "the morning walk", or just (16) plimbarea "the walk" contrasting with plimbarea mea de dimineaja plimbarea mea " m y walk".

" m y morning walk" or

§ 3. PASSIVIZATION W e call passivization the transformation determined by the presence of the node Pas within the underlying structure of the Y P . There are two variants of this transformation each of them being determined by the symbol dominated by the node Pas : FI + Part or the reflexive SE (the so-called "passive reflexive"). The two passivization types differ from each other by the place the symbol bearing the passive meaning occupies within the surface structure. The two variants of the passivization have in common the moving of the direct object in the position before the verb. The moving of the subject in the position after the verb and preceded by DE (CATRE) is not relevant for either transformation, because the presence of the subject within the underlying structure is not necessarily required. Constructions like : (1) Cartea este citita de (catre) studenft " T h e book is read by the students" and (2) Cartea se citeste de {catre) studenfi (the same translation) have the following underlying structures :

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

180

(1') ((studentii)NP1 (((MT)Aux (cityVertyY (PE) {cartea)NP2 ((DE GATBE)(FI + Part))Pas)VP)S, (2') {studenfii)^! ((MT)Aux (citi)Verb)V (PE)(cartea)1STPa ((DE CATBE)(SE)~Refl)) Pas)YP)S respectively. The symbol Eefl dominated by Pas in (2') accounts precisely for the double function it has in constructions of the type (2'), marking the passive meaning of the construction and expressing the inherent reflexive meaning. The two variants of the passive transformation are the following: -DE T17a (obligatory) : (X)NP x - A u x - V e r b -PE-'NP^ 1 — 2 — 3 - 4 — 5 — F I + Part => 5 - 2 + 7 — 3 - 6 - 1 . 7

CAT RE 6

-

T17b (obligatory) : (X)NP x —Aux —Verb — PE — £TP2 -DE GATBE 6 1 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Eefl => 5 - 7 + 2 - 3 - 6 - 1 . 7 Since the constituent X, dominated by NP 1 may be empty as a result of applying T13 ( = indefinite subject deletion), and since sentences like : (1") *Cartea este citita de (catre) (2") *Gartea se citeste de (catre) are ungrammatical, we have to establish a rule to the effect of deleting DE (GATBE), when followed directly by another constituent of the YP or by an AvP. On the other hand, since by applying rule T13, a construction with an impersonal SE prefixed to the verb is already obtained, we have to delete one of the occurrences of the se within the constituents dominated by Y ; since the passive SE is located by T17b in front of the auxiliary and has no need to be repositioned, whereas the impersonal — SE from T13 would need a special repositioning rule, we may state a deletion rule, to the effect of deleting both DE (GATBE), followed by a constituent which is not an N P j ( = a former subject -NP) and impersonal SE: T18 (obligatory) : Aux - Eefl - vb —DE GATBE — Impers -(X)_ N I , 1 - 2 - 3 4 — 5 - 6 =>1 — 2 - 3 — 6. Eules T17b, T18 and T13 account for the distinction between the impersonal reflexive constructions like 1 1 11

See

Gramatica

(1963),

I, p.

20.

III. TRANSFORMATION RULES

181

(3) Se merge mult pina acolo "it is a long way to walk there" and, on the other hand, impersonal passive constructions like : (4) Se citesc multe carfi acolo "many books are read there" or (5) Se citeste mult acolo "one reads much there". Sentences like (3) are derived by T13 and then by T17b from underlying constructions with unspecified subject, whereas sentences like (4), (5) are derived by T17b, T18 from underlying structures containing, at the same time, an unspecified subject (deleted by T13) and the reflexive SE dominated by the node Pas 1 2 . § 37. COMPARATIVIZATION AND SUPERLATIVIZATION §

37

a.

COMPARATIVIZATION

The adjectives and the adverbs are characterized by the fact they may have specific forms when the quality expressed by them in connection with some object is compared with the same quality displayed by another object. Comparison is characterized by two features : a) the presence of a comparative adverb (or an equivalent phrase); b) the presence of a complement of the comparative. The presence of the feature a) presupposes the presence of the feature b) and vice versa. Comparing (1) Ion este mai inalt decit Gheorghe "John is taller than George", (2) Ion citeste cartea mai repede decit Gheorghe "John reads the book faster than George" with their corresponding : (la) Ion este mai inalt decit este Gheorghe "John is taller than George is", (2a) Ion citeste cartea mai repede decit citeste Gheorghe cartea, literally "John reads the book faster than George reads the book", one may notice that what is usually considered in (1) "complement of the comparative" occurs in (la) as copula clause (where the predicative is dropped but is understood as identical with that occurring in the main clause); on the other hand, what in (2) is expressed by means of a complement of the adverb in the comparative is expressed in (2a) by means 12

T h e distinction between c o n s t r u c t i o n s like ( 3 ) , on the one hand, and (4), (5), on t h e other,

is made in t e r m s of a transformational device b y Ionescu ( 1 9 6 7 ) .

182

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL S Y N T A X OF ROMANIAN

of a clause whose adverb is dropped (and obviously understood as identical with that occurring in the main clause). Then, the full form of the clauses occurring in (la), (2a) after decit is : (lb) Gheorghe este inalt "George is tall", (2b) Gheorghe citeste cartea repede "George reads the book fast", respectively. The above remarks corroborate the traditional semantic description of the comparative : comparison expresses the "degree" of a property characterizing an object or an action, with respect to the same property characterizing another object or action. In other words, the main clause from (1) asserts that the individual Ion displays the property inalt "tall" "in a higher degree" than that in which the same property is displayed by the individual Gheorghe (the last assertion is made in (lb)). In the same way, sentence (2) asserts the individual Ion performs the activity citi cartea "read the book" in a more rapid way than the way in which Gheorghe performs the same activity (the last assertion is made in (2b)). We may then assume that the "complement of the comparative" always implies an ellipsis. This ellipsis may have various extensions : (a) the m i n i m a l ellipsis involves only the adjective or the adverb which are identical with the adjective or the adverb from the main clause; (b) the m a x i m a l ellipsis involves all the constituents of the clause following decit, excepting the subject (sentences (1), (2), above). It follows that the main clause and the clause expressing the complement of the comparative must be partially identical. In case of a clause functioning as complement of an adjective in the comparative, this partial identity may be described as follows : 1°. Both clauses are of the form subject-copula-predicative. 2°. The predicative of the complement clause is identical with the predicative of the main clause. The requirements under 1°, 2° enable us to consider sentences like: (3) *Ion este mai inalt decit Gheorghe se plimba "John is taller than George is walking", (4) *Ion este mai inalt decit Gheorghe este frumos "John is taller than George is handsome" as ungiammatical and this fact completely agrees with the linguistic intuition of any speaker of Eomanian. In the case of clauses functioning as complements of an adverb in the comparative, the identity conditions are different. Here only the identity between the adverb from the complement-clause and the adverb from the main clause is required. That means that a sentence like :

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RULES

183

(5) Ion m&ninca mai repede decit bea Gheorghe vinul (de repede) " J o h n eats faster than George drinks the wine (fast)" is grammatical, whereas a sentence like : (6) *Ion maninca mai repede decit doarme Gheorglie mult " J o h n eats faster than George sleeps a long time" is ungrammatical. Since for the complement clauses of an adverb only the identity of the adverb is required, it follows that the degree of ambiguity of the ellipsis is higher than the degree of ambiguity of the ellipsis occurring within the complement clauses of the adjective. Indeed, sentence (2) may be understood either as identical with (2a), or identical with (2c) Ion cite$te cartea mai repede decit maninca Gheorghe (de repede) lit. " J o h n reads the book faster than George eats (fast)", or identical with : (2d) Ion cite§te cartea mai repede decit scrie Gheorghe scrisoarea (de repede) lit. " J o h n reads the book faster than George writes the letter fast", etc. On the other hand, the ambiguity of the ellipsis within the complement clauses of an adjective is always null (even when the complement clause happens to have by ellipsis only one constituent: its subject). I n other words, (1) can be understood only as (lb). The informal remarks concerning the complement-clauses of the comparative suggest t h a t one should state two distinct transformation rules : one to be applied to the complement-clause of the adjective in the comparative, the other to be applied to the complement-clause of the adverb in the comparative. The rule to be applied to the complement-clause of the adjective will be : T19al (obligatory): Aj x — md — md — Prep — R — (liP — V —Ajj)S 1 - 2 3 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 — 8 =>2-3-1-4-5-7-6. If T19al is applied to (1') (Ion Jin?! (((este)V (mare )Aj, Predicative^ ((mai) md (mult)md (DE) Prep (OiT)R ((Gheorghe)'.!STPa ((este) V(mare) Predicative^ PredP^Sj) Md)Pred P 1 ; we obtain (1") *Ion este mai mult mare decit este Gheorghe. An obligatory rule should delete later the constituent mult; the result will be (la). Sentences of the form

184

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

(7) Ion este mai mult tnalt decit frumos "John is rather tall than handsome" (lit. : John is taller than handsome) display a particular feature : the subject of the complement-clause is identical to the subject of the main clause, whereas the predicatives are distinct in the two clauses. I t seems then that the requirement 2° stated above with respect to the complement-clauses of the adjectives should be amended as follows : 2°a. Either the predicative of the complement-clause must be identical to the predicative of the main clause, or else the subject ot the complement-clause must be identical to the subject of the main clause. The underlying structure of sentences like (7) is : (7') (Ion)SP1((este)Y {{tnalt) Predicative! {{MAI) md {MULT)md (DE) Prep(OlT)E((Ion)NP 1 ((este)Y(frumos) Aj, Predicative 2 )PredP 2 ) SJ Md)PredP!. In order to get (7) from (7') one has to apply a transformation, the general form of which will be : T19aII (obligatory) : N I \ —V — A j , —md —md —Prep —E — ( N P j —Y 1 - 2 — 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 -7 — 8 - 9 — A j 2 ) 8 = ) 1 — 2 — 4 — 5 — 3— 6 - 7 - 1 0 . -10 The underlying structure of (2a) is : ( 2 ' ) ( I o » ) N P 1 {{citestejV (cartea)^Pa ((MAI)md (MULT)mdx (DE) Prep (ClT)E (repede)Av, A v P ((GJieorghe)NP3(citeste)Y(cartea)T$~P4(MULT) md) (BEPEDE)Av, A v P , PredP^SJMdjPredPj. In order to obtain (2a) from (2') the following transformation rule is to be applied : T19b (obligatory): md — md — Prep - E — ( N P — Y - X — md) S 1 - 2 -

3 - 4 - 5

- 6 — 7 — 8

=>1-2-3-4-6-5-7. Transformations T19al, I I and T19b cannot be applied to structures where the sentence dominated by Md contains as its proper constituent a clause dominated by Md. This restriction is formally expressed in T19al, I I by including into brackets the sequence N P —V —Aj and labelling these brackets by S ; since N P —V —Aj is the full specification of the constituents of S, it follows that this sentence (S) cannot include a Md-constituent and, implicitly, cannot include a sentence dominated by Md. In T19b, the restriction is formally expressed by indicating that md 2 is dominated by Md, which means that Md does not dominate any symbol S and by specifying all the constituents of the embedded sentence S.

III. TRANSFORMATION RULES

185

In order to obtain from sentences of the form (la) a sentence of the form (1), we have to state an optional rule, to the effect of deleting the copula : T20 (optional) : Prep — E — F I — NP => 1 —2 — 4 1 — 2 — 3 — 4. § 37 b. SUPERLATIVIZATION The so-called "relative superlative" is in many respects similar to the comparative. This kind of superlative is characterized by two features : (a) the presence of an element expressing comparison : mai (pufin); this element has prefixed the item CEL 1 3 ; (b) the presence of a complement of the superlative preceded by dintre "from among" or din "from". The presence of (a) involves the presence of (b) and vice versa. Let us now consider the following sentences : (8) Ion este eel mai bun dintre elevi "John is the best of the pupils", (8a) Ion este eel mai bun dintre elevii eare sint buni "John is the best pupil of all the pupils who are good (pupils)". One may notice that the constituent which in (8) is complement of the superlative occurs in (8a) in an expanded form : a nominal determined by a relative copula-clause, whose predicative is identical with the predicative of the main clause. In a similar way, the complement of the superlative in : (9) Ion invaf& eel mai bine dintre elevi "John learns the best of the pupils" is paralleled in (9a) by a nominal determined by a relative clause : (9a) Ion invafa, eel mai bine dintre elevii care invafa bine "John learns the best of the pupils who learn well". The underlying structures of (8a), (9a) are : (8b) ((Ion)^T1 ((este)Y (6w)Predicative1 ((CEL) (MAI)Indai (MULT) md(dintre)Frej>((eiem)]Srommal3 ((CABJE)Tl ((eie»w)Eommal3((sint) Yi&timJPredicativej )PredP2) )Rel)KP2 )Md)YP,PredP1) S0 (9b) ( ( I o n ) ] ^ ((inva}a)V (CEL) (MAI)md(bine) md(dintre)Pre^ ((elevii) Nominal ((CARE?)R ((elevii)!STP ((invafflV (bine)md, Md2)VP2, PredP 2 ) Sj )Eel)NP2 )Mdx) VPi ,PredPx) S0 respectively. 13

See G r a m a t i c a ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,

I, p.

126.

186

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

In order to obtain from structures like (8b) constructions of the form (8a), the following transformation is to be applied : T21 (obligatory) : Aj — CEL —MAI —md —Prep —NP=>2 —3—4—1 —5—6 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6. A concord rule must assign the feature [ + P l u r a l ] to the Nominal preceded by dintre. The relativization rule (T8) m a y be applied either before or after rule T21a, that is T8 and T21a are unordered with respect to each other. On the other hand, one should notice that, in order to obtain (9a) from (9b), no specific transformation is required. I t can be done b y simply applying the relativization rule to (9b). In order to obtain (8), (9) from (8a), (9a), an optional ellipsis rule is needed, to the effect of deleting the constituent Eel from the N T preceded by dintre. However, the rule must avoid the possibility of applying to any structure of the form dintre —Nominal —Eel, that is to structures like : (10) Ion a cunoscut pe mulfi dintre studenfii care sint in aceasta camera "John got acquainted with many of the students who are in this room". In order to do this, the rule must involve the specification of the fact that it is to be applied when and only when dintre and Nominal —Eel are dominated by the node M d : T22 (optional) : (dintre — (Nominal — Bel)NP)Md => 1—2 1 2 — 3. In order to obtain the correct form of the nominal, that is a nominal with no definite article, rule T21 must be applied before the rule which deletes the definite article. In other words, applying T21 to (8a), we obtain : (8c) Ion este eel mai bun dintre elevii. In (8c) a T-rule must delete the definite article. § 38. DEFINITE ARTICLE DELETION In Eomanian, the noun cannot take a definite article in the following circumstances : a) when preceded by an adjective or adjectival determiner which is incompatible with a noun in the definite form ( = a noun which takes definite article); this specification is necessary, because not all the adjective or adjectival determiners are incompatible with a noun in the definite form (there is a class of such determiners, like insumi, insufi "myself, yourself", chiar "even", tot "all", etc., which m a y be followed by nouns in the definite form);

III. TRANSFORMATION

RULES

187

b) when preceded by a preposition (belonging to the class : de "of", din "from", etc.) which does not admit a noun in definite form after it; here again it is to be pointed out that not all prepositions belong to this class (prepositions like cu "with", contra "against", etc., may be followed by nouns in the definite form). When the noun is followed by an attribute it usually takes the definite article, even when the noun is preceded by constituents from the category b), which do not allow a noun to occur in definite form. In agreement with the above remarks, we may say phrases like : (1) aceasta mash "this table", (2) o masti "a table", (3) despre mash "about table", (4) la masti, "at table" are well-formed, whereas phrases like : (5) *aceasta masa "this the table" (6) *o masa "a the table" (7) *despre masa "about the table" (8) *la masa "at the table" are ill-formed. On the other hand, phrases like : (9) toata masa "all the table" (10) cu masa "with the table" are also well-formed. In agreement with the remark immediately after b), phrases like : (11) despre masa mare "about the big table", (12) la masa mare "at the big table" are also well-formed. Since the phrase-structure rules generate only nominals containing in their structure a definite article, it follows that the transformational level must involve rules to the effect of deleting definite articles in the proper environments. Since, according to the phrase-structure rules, the constituents of a Nominal may be a pronoun followed by the definite article, and since, at the surface level such constructions are never allowed, it also follows that the grammar must be provided with transformational rules deleting definite articles preceded by a pronoun. Finally, since a noun functioning as Predicative has never a definite article if not followed by an attribute, the transformational component must involve rules deleting definite articles in such positions.

188

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

The obligatory rules deleting definite article are the following : T23a (obligatory) : pronoun — Flex . . . Art =>1—2 1 - 2 3 T23b (obligatory) : [ — [ _ • . . . Art]] X, Det. . . W - F l e x - Art = > 1 - 2 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 T23c (obligatory) :

{T ^ ^ ^ T v e r b } - " 1

Art) N P - 2 — 3 - 4

=>1-2—3 In T23b, c the first constituent is marked by the syntactic feature [ + D e t ] , [ + P r e p ] and [ -fVerb] and by the selection restriction — [ . . . Art] (which means that the constituent is incompatible with a following noun in definite form); in T23c, the first constituent may be either a preposition or a copula-verb (because only a copula-verb is allowed to occur before a Predicative). The specification of the constituent structure in T23c is meant to avoid applying the rule when the noun is followed by an attribute. In this respect, rule T23c differs from the preceding rules, which apply no matter whether the noun is followed by an attribute or not. An underlying : (13) (((ew)Personal (X)Flex)Nominal (Y)Art)KP becomes by T23 a : (13') (((ew)Personal (X)Flex) N o m i n a l ) ^ . An underlying : (14) ((acest)Det((elevW (w)Flex)Nominal (I)Art)NP becomes by T23b (14') *acest elevu. ((14') must undergo further a morphophonemic rule, deleting the inflection -u-). The underlying : (15) ((acesi)Det (elev)(w)Flex (/)Art) {bun)Eel becomes (15') *acest elevu bun by T23c. The underlying: (16) ((si»-e)Prep(((cas)]Sr(a)Flex)]Srominal (a)Art)lS T P)PrepP becomes by T22c (16') spre casa.

III. TRANSFORMATION

RULES

189

Notice that preposition pe "on" is marked in the lexicon by the syntactic feature [+Prep] and by the selection restriction — [ _ . . . Art]; hence no matter whether the sequence 2>e~N~Flex~Art is a prepositional phrase (like in sta pe masa "(it) lies on (the) table") or belongs to the YP, as direct object (like in U vad pe elev " I am seeing (the) pupil"), it undergoes rule T22c anyway. That means T22 applies both to underlying structures like (17) ((e«)NP ((vdd)V (PE) ((elev)N (w)Flex)Nominal (Z)Art)]*rP)VP, PredP)S and to underlying structures like (18) ((cartea)!STP (sta)YP (Pi?) Prep (((mas)N (a) Flex) Nominal (o)Art) NP)PrepP,AvP)S. Applying T23c to (17), (18), we get: (17') eu vad pe elev " I am seeing (the) pupil", (18') eartea stape masd "the book lies on (the) table" respectively. In order to obtain phrases of the type : (19) masa aeeasta (that is, phrases containing a noun in definite form followed by a determiner acest, which requires a noun with no article after it, we have to order rule T22a after an optional rule to the effect of moving the pre-determiner in the position after the noun). If the latter rule is applied first, we obtain : (19) masa aeeasta "this the table" and (19) does no longer go through rule T22a. In the same way, if T22c is ordered after the transformation which deletes the constituent PE (in front of the direct object _ NP), one may get sentences like: (20) Eu vad elevul " I am seeing the pupil" along with (20') Eu vad pe elev " I am seeing (the) pupil" Optional deletion of the definite article. In Romanian, the subject noun may be used in the non-definite form when it is in the plural. Both of (21a) Gopiii se joaca in curte "The children are playing in the courtyard" and (21 b) Gopii se joaca in curte lit. "Children are playing in the courtyard". are well-formed sentences. When the noun is a direct object and is in the plural or is a mass-noun, it may be also used in the non-definite form. All the following sentences are well-formed :

190

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

(22a) Eu vad oopiii m curte " I see the children in the courtyard" (22b) Eu vad copii in curte " I see children in the courtyard", (23a) Eu beau laptele " I am drinking the milk", (23b) Eu beau lapte "I am drinking milk". One should notice that, when they function as direct object, the nouns in the plural behave like the mass-nouns. The same similarity is displayed by plural nouns and mass-nouns in other syntactic environments too (for example, the nouns in the plural may take determiners like nifte "some", pufin "few", mult "many" or "much", like the mass-nouns, whereas the non-mass-nouns in the singular cannot take such determiners). Since the conditions under which the subject noun may occur in the non-definite form are not identical with the conditions under which the direct object noun may occur in the indefinite form, we have to state two different deletion rules : the first (for the subject) provides the optional deletion of the article when the noun is in the plural (but not when the subject is a mass-noun); the second (for the object) provides the optional deletion of the article if the noun is in the plural or if it is a mass-noun. T24 a (optional) : 1ST - ( + Plural)Flex — Art — PredP = > 1 — 2 - 4 12 —3 4 T24b (optional) : V -PE - { [ ^ p ^ ^ } N - A r t = > 1 - 2 - 3 1 - 2 -

3

-

4

In T24b, the feature [—Discrete] means the same thing as mass-noun. In agreement with T24a, (21b) is derivable from (21a), (22b) from (22a) and (23b) from (23a). § 39. DELETION OF Pos

Many of the phrase-structure rules or of the transformation rules of the grammar — such as it was developed up to here — allow the derivation of structures in which the symbol Pos is immediately preceded by the definite article; the terminal strings of such structures have forms like *easa a vecinului, *plecarea a prietenilor, etc. Such sequences are incorrect in Eomanian usage. In order to convert these ill-formed sentences into well-formed ones, a deletion rule is needed to be applied to the constituent Pos, when immediately preceded by an Art-constituent. The general form of the rule is : T25 (obligatory) : X — Art - Pos - Y => 1 - 2 - 4 1 - 2 3 - 4 .

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

191

RULES

Applying T25 to the underlying (1) casa a vecinului (2) plecarea a prietenilor we obtain (1') casa vecinului "the neighbour's house", (2') pleoarea prietenilor "the friends' leaving".

§ 40. DELETION OF md We have already seen that the underlying structure of any comparative or superlative construction involves as an obligatory md MULT or PUTIN. The underlying structures of : (1) Ion este mai frumos decit este Gheorghe "John is more handsome than is George", (2) Ion este eel mai frumos dintre elevii care citesc "John is the most handsome of the pupils who are reading" are (1') *Ion este md MULT frumos decit este Gheorghe PUTIN frumos (2') Ion este GEL mai MULT frumos dintre elevii elevii sint PUTIN frumop care citesc. In order to obtain sentences like (1), (2) from their underlying (1'), (2') the following deletion rule is needed : T26 (obligatory) :

- V - X - m d - md 1

-2-3—4

- Y

- 5

-

- P r e p - Y - NP„ 6

-

7

—8—9

=>1-2-3-4-6-7-8-9-10

-10.

§ 41. DELETION OF PE The phrase-structure rules generate sentences in which the direct object is always preceded by PE (see 013). That means both (1) El cheama elevul "he is calling the pupil" (2) El citeste cartea "he is reading the book" have within their underlying structure the preposition PE in front of the direct object: (1') *El cheama PE elevul (2') *El citeste PE cartea.

192

THE T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L

SYNTAX

OF

ROMANIAN

Since the nouns which do not display the so-called "personal gender" (in our terminology, the nouns which are not characterized in the lexicon by or are not incorporating through local transformations the feature [ +Personal]) are not preceded by PE, when they occur as direct object, our grammar must be provided with a rule which deletes PE, if the following nominal is not a Personal. T27 (obligatory) : V —PE — [ -Personal] => 1 —3 1 —2 —

3

Applying T26 to (1'), (2'), we obtain (1), (2).

§ 42. TRANSFORMATIONS ORDERING Let us consider a phrase-structure grammar G, containing the rules r j , . . . , rn ; let us consider that the initial symbol of the grammar G is S. Let us assume now that grammar G contains at least one rule, r u where l - < i ^ n , providing that a non-terminal symbol X is to be rewritten as Y~S~Z ( Y and Z might be allowed to be null strings) ; that means rule l'i has the form : X

Y~S~Z.

I t is obvious that, after applying r,, all the previous rules of G, up to rj, inclusively, must be applied again ; after applying r, for the second time, the derivation must be started again by applying all the rules up to l'j ; this derivation may be repeated infinitely many times. We shall call X a self embedding structure. The phrase structure grammar developed in chapter I I of this book specifies a number of such self embedding structures, viz. N P (06), Eel (09), Md (019). If for deriving a sentence structure S, containing X as one of its constituents, the derivation was started n times, we say the structure X is n-times self embedded. If the transformational component of a grammar involves a transformational rule T, whose scope is exactly the self embedding structure X , we say T; is a cyclic transformation. If a sentence S (generated by the phrase-structure component) contains structure X self embedded n times, transformation T, must be applied to X exactly n times within S. Ti must be applied first to the lowest structure X (that is to the structure X„, and later, upwards, to the structure X n _ 2 , etc.)

III. T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RULES

193

The transformational component described in Chapter H I contains the following cyclic rules : T1 (constituent coordination), T2 (pseudo-coordination), T5 (total negation), T7 (interrogativization), T8 (relativization), T10 (attributivization), T12a, b (infinitivization, gerundivization), T14a, b (nominalization), T19al, II, 19b (comparativization), T21 (superlativization). I t is worth mentioning that T8 (relativization) cannot be applied to a Eel into which another Eel is embedded, if the nouns determined by Eel have the same syntactic function in both embedded and embedding Eel (see the restriction expressed in the form of T8). Under such conditions, structures which do not fulfil the conditions required by T8 are filtered out. In a similar way, rules T19al, II, T19b cannot be applied if a constituent Md contains another constituent Md embedded into it. One of the non-cyclic rules should be ordered before one rule belonging to the cycle : rule T13 (indefinite subject deletion) before rule T14b (nominalization) ; see § 35, the comments under T14b. Some of the other non-cyclic rules should be ordered definitely after one or another of the rules belonging to the cycle : (a) Eules T9 (sum pro habeo) and T10 (attributivization) must be ordered after T8 (relativization); see § 33 a, 33 b, the comments under T10. (b) Eules T20 ( F I deletion in clauses which are complement of the comparative), T25 (Pos-deletion), T26 (md-deletion), T27 (P^-deletion) have to be after the cycle because all these symbols are involved in the transformations which belong to the cycle. "Within the transformational cycle, rule T8 (relativization) should be ordered before T14b (nominalization of sentences with unspecified subject); see § 35, the comments under T14b. I t also seems (see § 33b, the comments under (12)) that T10 (attributivization) should precede T8 (relativization). On the other hand, T l , 2 (coordination and pseudo-coordination) must be preceded by T8 (relativization) and T6 (interrogativization); see § 30, the final remarks. At the same time, in order to obtain relative clauses with coordinate constituents or nominals determined by coordinate attributes it seems necessary to order T l (constituent-coordination) before T8 and/or T10. Then we can say t h a t the class of cyclic rules contains a sub-class of ordered The comments under (12) in § 33 b do not contradict the above statements concerning the order in which transformations should be applied. In deriving (12), T9 (sum pro habeo) applies to a structure dominated by another node than the structure to which T10 (attributivization) is applied.

REFERENCES

B a c h - H a r m s (1968) : E r a m o n B a c h a n d R o b e r t T. H a r m s (Eds.) Univcrsals in Linguistic Theory, New York : H o l t , R i n e h a r t & W i n s t o n , Inc. Bar-Hillel (1969) : J e h o s h u a Bar-Hillel. Universal Semantics and Philosophy of L a n g u a g e : Quandaries a n d Projects, in Puhoel (1969), 1 — 21. Belchitâ (1967, 1968) : A n c a Belchi^a. M o r p h e m e S t r u c t u r e R u l e s in t h e Generative G r a m m a r of t h e R o m a n i a n L a n g u a g e I. RRL 1 2 . 5 0 7 - 5 2 2 : II. RRL 1 3 . 2 9 - 4 7 . B e l c h i p (1969) : Anca Belchitâ. Flexiunea n o m i n a l â în g r a m a t i c a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l â a limbii r o m â n e I. SCL 20. 4 1 5 - 4 2 6 ; II. SCL 2 0 . 5 0 9 - 5 3 1 . Belchitâ (1970) : A n c a Belchitâ. Flexiunea v e r b a l â in g r a m a t i c a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l â a limbii r o m â n e . SCL 21. 1 7 1 - 2 0 3 . B e n d i x (1966) : E d w a r d H e r m a n Bendix. Componcntial Analysis of General V o c a b u l a r y : T h e S e m a n t i c S t r u c t u r e of a Set of Verbs in English, Hindi, a n d J a p a n e s e . 1JAL 32, 2. Benveniste (1966): Emile Benveniste. Problèmes de linguistique générale. P a r i s : G a l l i m a r d . Benveniste (1966a) : Emile Benveniste. P o u r l'analyse des fonctions casuelles : le génitif latin, in Benveniste (1966), 1 4 0 - 2 2 3 . Benveniste (1966b) : Ë m i l e Benveniste. S t r u c t u r e des relations de personne d a n s le verbe, in Benveniste (1966), 2 2 5 - 2 3 6 . B e n v e n i s t e (1966c) : E m i l e Benveniste. La n a t u r e des pronoms, in Benveniste (1966), 251 — 257. B e n v e n i s t e (1966d) : Émile Benveniste. Les verbes délocutifs, in Benveniste (1966), 277—288. B r a i n e r d (1967) : B a r r o n B r a i n e r d . A T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e G r a m m a r for R u m a n i a n Numerical Expressions. Cahiers 4.35 — 45. Cahiers : Cahiers de linguistique théorique et appliquée, Bucureçti : Université de Bucarest. Chafe (1965): Wallace L. Chafe. Meaning in Language. American Anthropologist 67. 23 — 36. Chafe (1967) : Wallace L. Chafe. L a n g u a g e as Symbolization. Language 43.57 — 91. Chafe (1968a) : Wallace L. Chafe. English Noun Inflection and Related Matters from a Generative Semantic Point of View. P r o j e c t on Linguistic Analysis R e p o r t s . Second Series, 6. Chafe (1968b) : Wallace L. Chafe. English Questions. P r o j e c t on Linguistic Analysis R e p o r t s . Second Series, 6. Chomsky (1957) : N o a m Chomsky. Syntactic Structures ( = J a n u a L i n g u a r u m 4). T h e H a g u e : Mouton & Co. Chomsky (1959) : N o a m Chomsky. On Certain F o r m a l P r o p e r t i e s of G r a m m a r s . Information and Control 2 . 1 3 7 - 1 6 7 . Chomsky (1961) : N o a m Chomsky. On t h e N o t i o n " R u l e of G r a m m a r " , in Fodor-Katz (1965), 119-136. Chomsky (1965) : N o a m Chomsky. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass. : T h e M.I.T. Press. Chomsky (1966) : N o a m Chomsky. Cartesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York : H a r p e r & R o w , Publishers. C h o m s k y (1967) : N o a m Chomsky. R e m a r k s on Nominalization, in Jacobs-Rosenbaum (1970), 184-221. Chomsky-Halle (1968) : N o a m Chomsky a n d Morris Halle. The Sound Pattern of English. New York : H a r p e r & R o w , Publishers.

196

T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L S Y N T A X OF R O M A N I A N

Chomsky-Miller (1958) : Noam Chomsky and George A. Miller. Finite State Languages. Information and Control 1.91 — 112. Cipariu (1869) : Timotei Cipariu. Gramaieca limbei romane, Partea I, Bucuresci. Cipariu (1877) : Timotei Cipariu. Gramateca limbei romane, P a r t e a II, Sintaclica, Bucuresci. CL : Cercetâri de lingvisticâ. Cluj : Academia R S R , Filiala Cluj. Dimitrescu (1958) : Florica Dimitrescu. Locuiiunile verbale in limba românâ, B u c h a r e s t : E d i t u r a Academiei. Dràganu (1945) : Nicolae Drâganu. Elemente de sinlaxâ a limbii romane. Bucharest : I n s t i t u t u l de lingvisticâ r o m â n â . Fillmore (1968) : Charles J . Fillmore. The Case for Case, in Bach-Harms (1968), 1 - 8 8 . F o d o r - K a t z (1964) : J e r r y A. Fodor and Jerrold J . K a t z (Eds). The Structure of Language : Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gleitman (1965) : Lila R. Gleitman. Coordinating Conjunctions in English. Language 41. 260—293. Golopentia-Eretescu (1966) : Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu. Vowel Alternations in Transformational Grammar, in Phonologie (1967), 134—141. Golopentia-Eretescu (1969) : Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu. Semantica transformationalâ a limbii romane. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bucharest. Golopentia-Eretescu (1970) : Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu. La s t r u c t u r e profonde des constructions comparatives. ACILPR XII 1.745-749. Gramatica (1963) I, II : Academia Republicii Socialiste Romania. Gramatica limbii romane I and II, Bucharest. Greenberg (1966) : Joseph II. Greenbcrg (Ed.). Universals of Language. T h e M.I.T. Press. Gross (1968) : Maurice Gross. Grammaire transformationnelle. Analyse de constructions verbales en français. Paris : Larousse. Gruitâ (1970) : C. Gruita. E m Vasiliu çi Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu. Sintaxa transformationalâ a limbii române. S t U B B 1 5 . 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 . Gutu-Romalo (1963) : Valeria Gutu-Romalo. In problema clasificârii verbelor. Incercare de clasificare sintagmaticà. SCL 14.29 — 52. Harris (1963) : Z. S. Harris. Structural Linguistics. Chicago : T h e U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. H j e l m s l e v (1963): Louis Hjelmslev. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Madison: T h e U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press. Ionescu (1965) : Liliana Ionescu. Phrases contractées par le gérondif et le participe. Cahiers 2.115-126. Ionescu (1967) : Liliana Ionescu. Generarea constructiilor eu subiect nedeterminat. SCL 18. 413-434. K a t z (1966) : Jerrold J . K a t z . The Philosophy of Language. New York and London : H a r p e r & Row. K a t z - F o d o r (1963) : J e r r o l d J . K a t z and J e r r y A. Fodor. The S t r u c t u r e of a Semantic Theory, in Fodor-Katz (1964), 4 7 9 - 5 1 8 . K a t z - P o s t a l (1964) : J e r r o l d J . K a t z and Paul M. Postal. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass : T h e M.I.T. Press. Kiparsky (1967) : P a u l and Carol Kiparsky. F a c t . Unpublished paper, M.I.T. Klima (1964) : E d w a r d S. Klima. Negation in English, in Fodor-Katz (1964), 2 4 6 - 3 2 3 . Lakoff (1965) : George Lakoff. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity ( = R e p o r t No.NSF-16 to t h e National Science Foundation). Cambridge, Mass. : The Computation L a b o r a t o r y of H a r v a r d University. Lakoff (1966a) : George Lakoff. Stative Adjectives and Verb in English (Mss). Lakoff (1966b) : George Lakoff. Deep and Surface Grammar. Unpublished paper, H a r v a r d University.

REFERENCES

197

L a k o f f (1968) : George L a k o f f . Pronouns and Reference. H a r v a r d Mimeo. Langacker (1966) : Pronominalization and the Chain of Command, in Reibel-Schane

(Eds).

Langendoen (1967) : Terence D. Langendoen. T h e Accessibility of Deep (Semantic)

Structure

(Mss). Lees (1963) : R o b e r t B. Lees. The Grammar of English Nominallzations.

T h e Hague : Mouton & Co.

Mancaç (1965) : Mihaela Mancaç. Observations sur la syntaxe des complétives et des subjectives dans la grammaire générative. Cahiers

2. 127—146.

Mancaç (1967) : Mihaela Mancaç. Aspects de la grammaire de coordination en roumain. Cahiers 4.

107-141.

Manoliu Manea (1968) : Maria Manoliu Manea. Sislematica standard.

subslitutelor din româna

conlemporanä

Bucharest : E d i t u r a Academiei.

Manoliu Manea (1970a) : Maria Manoliu Manea. Quelques réflexions sur la place de la une grammaire transformationnelle.

RRL

voix dans

15. 487 — 493.

Manoliu Manea (1970b) : Maria Manoliu Manea. Din curiozitätile neutrului românesc : colectivele animate, in SL,

183 — 192.

McCawley (1968) : James D. McCawley. (1968),

T h e R o l e of Semantics in a Grammar, in

Bach-Harms

125-202.

Miinea (1969) : Mihaela Mlinea. Un tip special de determinare verbalä. LR 18. 527—536. Mounin (1965a) : Georges Mounin. Un champ sémantique : la dénomination des animaux domestiques. La linguistique

1.31 — 54.

Mounin (1965b) : Georges Mounin. Essai sur la structuration du lexique de l'habitation. Cahiers de lexicologie

1.9—24.

Panä Dindelegan (1970a) : Gabriela Panä Dindelegan. Grupul verbal in sinlaxa a limbii

transformaiionalâ

romane. Abstract of the doctoral dissertation. Bucharest : University

of Bucharest

Mimeo. Panä Dindelegan (1970b) : Gabriela Panä Dindelegan. T h e A d v e r b i a l Phrase and the Quantit a t i v e Phrase, R e l e v a n t Determinants f o r the Subcategorization of the Verb. RRL

15.3 — 15.

Panä Dindelegan (1970c) : Gabriela Panä Dindelegan. Subcategorizarea verbului în func^ie de obiectul direct în gramatica transformaiionalâ a iimbii române. SCL 21. 433 — 453. Perlmutter (1968a) : D a v i d M. Perlmutter.

Evidence f o r Deep Structure Constraints in Syntax

(Mss). Perlmutter (1968b) : D a v i d M. Perlmutter. Deep and Surface

Structure

Constraints

in

Syntax.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, M . I . T . Phonologie (1967) : Phonologie

der Gegenwart, Vorträge und Diskussionen anlässlich der

Inter-

nationalen Phonologie-Tagung in W i e n , 3 0 . V I I I . - 3 . I X . 1966, Graz-Wien-Köln. PLG:

Probleme

Editura

de lingvisticä

generalä.

Eds

AI. Graur and Ion Coteanu (1967), Bucharest:

Academiei.

P o r t - R o y a l : Grammaire

générale et raisonnée,

présentée par H e r b e r t

La Grammaire

de Port-Royal.

Édition critique

E . Brekle. Nouvelle impression en facsimilé de la troisième édition

de 1676, Stuttgart. Postal (1964) : Paul M. Postal. Underlying and Superficial Linguistic Structure. Harvard cational

Postal (1966) : Paul M. Postal. On so-called " p r o n o u n s " in English, in Dineen (1966), Postal (1968) : Paul M . Postal. Crossover Phenomena

: A Study in the Grammar

Unpublished monograph, Y o r k t o w n Heights, N e w Y o r k : Thomas Center,

of

J. Watson

177-206. Coreference, Research

IBM.

Pottier (1964) : Bernard Pottier. Vers une sémantique moderne. Travaux littérature

Edu-

Review 34.246 — 266.

2.107-137.

de linguistique

et de

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL SYNTAX OF ROMANIAN

198

Puhvel (1969) : Jaan Puhvel ( E d ) . Substance and Structure Angeles : University

of

Berkeley

of Language,

and

Los

California Press.

Reibel-Schane(1969) : D a v i d A . Reibel and S a n f o r d A . Schane (Eds). Modern Studies in Readings in Transformational

English:

Englewood Cliffs, N . J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Grammar.

Rosenbaum (1967) : Peter S. Rosenbaum. The Grammar of English

Predicate

Complement

Con-

Cambridge, Mass. : M . I . T . Press.

structions.

Ross (1967a) : John R . Ross. Constraints

on Variables

in Syntax.

Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation M . I . T . Ross (1967b) : John R . Ross. Auxiliaries

as Main

Verbs. Unpublished Mimeo, M . I . T .

Ross (1967c) : John R . Ross . On Declarative Sentences, in Jacobs-Rosenbaum

(1970), 222 — 272.

Ross (1967d) : John R . Ross. A N o t e on " C o m m a n d " . Unpublished paper. M . I . T . R R L : Revue

Roumaine

Socialiste de Roumanie. SCL : Studii

cercetâri

de

Linguistique.

Éditions

de

l'Académie

de

la

République

Bucharest. lingvistice.

Sebeok (1966) : Thomas A . Sebeok. Current

Trends in Linguistics

I I I . Theoretical

Foundations.

T h e Hague : Mouton & Co. SL : Ion Coteanu and Lucia W a l d (Eds). Sistemele limbii.

Bucharest : E d i t u r a Academiei.

Çtirbu (1970) : V. E. Çtirbu, E m . Vasiliu and Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu. Sintaxa transformat i o n a l a limbii romàne. CL 15.361 — 363. Tiktin (1945) : H . Tiktin. Gramatica

romàna penlru

tnvâlâminlul

secundar.

Teorie f i

practicâ.

Bucharest : Tempo. E. Vasiliu (1965) : Emanuel Vasiliu. Fonologia

limbii

romàne,

Bucharest: E d i t u r a Çtiintificâ.

Vasiliu E m . (1967) : E m . Vasiliu. Sens referential çi reguli de transformare, in PLG 5.105 — 113. Vasiliu E m . (1969) : E m . Vasiliu. Some Remarks about

"and"-Constructions. RRL

Vasiliu Em. (1970a) : E m . Vasiliu. Truth V a l u e and Transformations, in ACIL

14.435—446. X

2.595-599.

Vasiliu E m . (1970b) : Emanuel Vasiliu. Semantica si sintaxa ; clteva observatii asupra constructiei

verbelor

"dicendi",

in S L 193 —215.

Vasiliu-Golopentia (1969) : Emanuel Vasiliu and Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu. Sintaxa mafionalâ

a limbii

transfor-

romane. Bucharest : E d i t u r a Academiei.

Vasiliu L . (1965) : Laura Vasiliu. L a génération des déterminants nominaux prépositionnels, RRL

10.275-279.

Vasiliu L . (1967) : Laura Vasiliu. Some Aspects of the Grammar of the Verb Phrase with Special Reference to Prepositional Constructions. RRL

12. 341 — 367.

Vasiliu L . (1969) : Laura Vasiliu. Some Grammatical and Semantic Remarks on the R e f l e x i v e Constructions. RRL

14. 3 6 5 - 3 7 2 .

Vincenz (1971) : Ileana Vincenz. Sentence Contraction (nominalization) in English and Romanian. Unpublished

paper.

Weinreich (1966a) : Uriel Weinreich. Explorations

in

Semantic Theory, in Sebeok

(1966),

Weinreich (1966b) : Uriel Weinreich. Problems in the Analysis of Idioms, in Puhvel

(1969),

395-534. 23-81. Ziff (1967) : Paul Z i f f . Semantic Analysis.

Ithaca, N e w Y o r k : Cornell University Press.