Romanian Demonstratives and Minimality

Alexandra Cornilescu

1. Aim of the section

Romanian has a rich set of demonstrative forms, which appear in pre-nominal, as well as in postnominal form; it also exhibits a morphologic difference between the pre-nominal and postnominal forms, since the post-nominal forms are longer by one tonic vowel, in bold below:
(1)

a.
b.
c.
d.

acest
elev
this
pupil
elevul acesta
pupil.the this
acel
elev
that
pupil
elevul acela
pupil.the that

This raises the problem of correctly licensing these forms, so that each should show up in
the proper environment for principled reasons.
b) Secondly, only the long form may be used as a pronoun:
(2)

a.
b.

acest creion /*acest

this pencil /this
caietul acesta /acesta
pencil.the this / this-a

c) From a Romance perspective, Romanian resembles Spanish, which also shows pre- and postnominal demonstratives. Moreover, in both languages, the post nominal demonstrative is
preceded by a definite noun (what Giusti (1993) calls the double definiteness phenomenon).
(3)

a
a.
b
b

aceast carte
este libro
this book
cartea aceasta
book.the this-a
il libro este
the book this

Romanian and Spanish show a marked contrast: in Romanian the demonstrative obligatorily
follows the definite noun and adjectives appear after the demonstrative. In Spanish adjectives
intervene between the definite noun and the lower demonstrative; in both languages these are the
only possible orderings:
(4)

a.
b.
c.
d.

cartea
aceasta
book.the
this-a
*cartea interesant
book.the interesting
il libro interessante este
the book interesting this
*il libro este interessante

interesant
interesting
aceasta
this-a

the book this interesting

d) The range of adjectives possible in the construction

The following claims will be made: a) the short form is a head licensed by (a chain of )
Agree relations; b) the long form is phrasal and it is licensed by specifier head agreement with a
nominal head; c) in both Romanian and Spanish the occurrence of the long form is related to
focus/ emphasis, but the mechanism of getting the demonstrative in post-nominal position is
different: it involves N-Movement in Romanian and NP Movement in Spanish. This distinction
derives from a major difference between the Romanian and the Spanish DPs, namely, the
different realization of the definite article: a suffix in Romanian, a free morpheme in Spanish.
2. On the definite declension nouns and adjectives in Romanian
3. Properties of demonstrative pronouns and adjectives.
3.1. The inventory of the demonstratives in Romanian. In the chart below, we have listed the set
of demonstratives of proximity and of distance, with the short/long forms. The demonstratives
vary for gender, number, and case, and are likely to be inherently definite.
(13)
-distal, short
-distal, long
_+ distal, short
+distal, long

M. Sg
acest
acesta
acel
acela

F.sg
aceasta
aceasta
acea
aceea

M.Pl
aceti
acetia
acei
aceia

F.Pl
aceste
acestea
acele
acelea

The short form functions only as a pre-nominal determiner, the long form functions as postnominal demonstrative adjective or as a pronoun:
(14)

a
b.
c.

(15)

a
b.
c.

Acest copil este Ion.

This child is Ion.
Copilul acesta este Ion
Child.the this+a is Ion
Acesta este Ion.
This+a is Ion.
Acel copil este Ion.
That child is Ion.
Copilul acela este Ion.
Child.the that+a is Ion.
Acela este Ion.
That+a is Ion.

Romanian also presents demonstratives of non-identity (= the other one), only one set
of forms, but the same pre-nominal, post-nominal and pronominal distribution.
(16)

a.
b.
c.

Cellalt elev este Ion.

The other pupil is Ion.
Elevul cellalt este Ion.
Pupil.the other is Ion.
Cellalt este Ion.
The other (one) is Ion.

These data raise the following two problems should be tackled: a) What is the syntax of the postnominal demonstrative? b) Why is the long rather than the short form used as a pronoun ?

3. 2 More on the post-nominal demonstrative Several properties characterize the distribution of

the post-nominal demonstrative. The most striking of these is the adjacency constraint. Namely,
while the pre-nominal demonstrative may be separated from the nominal head by any number of
constituents (17a, 18a), the post-nominal demonstrative requires a definite noun as its antecedent
(17b, 18b) and it is always strictly adjacent to this antecedent (17c, 18c):
(17)

a
b.
c.

(18)

a
b
c.

aceste dou foarte recente evenimente

these two very recent events
evenimentele acestea dou foarte recente
events.the these-a two very recent
*evenimentele importante acestea
events. the important these-a
acest fiu al lui Ion.
this son of Ion
fiul acesta al lui Ion
son.the this-a of Ion.
*fiul lui Ion acesta
son.the of Ion this-a.

Secondly, the constituents which follow the long demonstrative are all post-nominal
modifiers. Constituents which are restricted to pre-nominal position, such as intensional
adjectives, cannot appear after demonstratives (19c):
(19)

a
b
c.

(20)

a
b.
c

acest fost ministru

this former minister
*acest ministru fost
this minister former
*ministrul acesta fost
minister.the this-a former
acest alt elev
this other pupil
*acest elev alt
this pupl other
*elevul acesta alt
pupil.the this other

Cardinal numerals, however, may appear after post-posed determiners (21d). Significantly for the
analysis that follows, cardinal numerals cannot be directly post nominal (21c), they seem to be
licensed by the post-nominal demonstrative:
(21)

a
b
c
d.

aceti doi copii

these two children
doi copii
two children
*copii(i) doi
children(the) two
copiii acetia doi
children.the these-a two

In the following section an analysis is proposed to solve the problems mentioned in the
beginning.

4. Phrasal status of the determiners

A first problem that confronts the researcher is that of the phrase-theoretic status of the
demonstratives, that is, whether they should be analyzed as heads or phrases? A variety of
answers have been proposed: (Cornilescu (1992), Dumitrescu & Saltarelli (1996), Giusti &
Vulchanova (1998), Herdan (2005)). Below we review some relevant proposals
4.1 A first possibility is to claim that both demonstratives are heads which merge in D, as
in Herdan (2005). This analysis explains why short, acest DPs qualify as definite and may appear
after toi all, and in partitive phrases. The adjacency constraint of the long form also follows,
since on this analysis the noun adjoins to the Demonstrative in D when N-to-D takes place.
(22)

a.
b.

toi aceti studeni

all these students
o parte dintre ei /dintre aceti studeni
a part of them / of these students

The long form of the demonstrative is the result of concord with the head noun, as a
result of adjunction.
In spite of its simplicity and elegance, the analysis faces descriptive problems. In the first
place it makes certain wrong predictions. For instance, given that Herdan (2005) also makes the,
at times, common assumption that pre-nominal adjectives are heads, the prediction is that definite
adjectival heads could also adjoin to the demonstrative head, quite contrary to fact, as wellknown. The pronominal use of the long form goes unexplained
(23)

a
b.

acest drag copil

this dear child
*dragul acesta copil
dear.the this-a child

Secondly, there does not seem to be a natural way of extending the analysis, so that the Spanish
data may also be dealt with.
4.2. A second important proposal is that the short demonstrative is a D head while the
long form is a noun complement, specifically an N complement, as in Dumitrescu and Saltarelli
(1996). According to them, the short form acest, this is a D, a binder, just as in other Romance
languages. In contrast, the long form acesta does not function as the determiner of the noun, so
the noun requires an independent binder, namely the enclitic article. Postnominal demonstratives
merge as complements of the noun, as complements of N.
This analysis purports to explain the similarity between two categories of determiners,
the possessive and the demonstrative determiners, exhibited in the following paradigm.
The authors first note that possessives and the definite article may/must be encliticized;
acting as logical binders. The possessive is a determiner genitive. ( it conflates the properties of
definite article and possessive). The possessives, the enclitic article and the pre-nominal
demonstratives function as logical binders:
(24)

a.
b.
c.

frate-su brother-his
frate-le
brother-the
acest frate
this brother

Secondly, post-nominal possessives and post-nominal demonstratives both appear as

adnominal complements, functioning as modifiers, whose nominal head requires an
independent determiner to actualize the referential potential of the noun.

(25)

a.
b.

frate+le su
frate+ le acesta

brother+the his
brother+the this

The analysis also naturally accounts for the fact that post-nominal adjectives follow rather than
precede the demonstrative, since the demonstrative is a complement, rather than an adjunct.
(26)

a.
b.

aceste foarte recente evenimente

these very recent events
evenimentele acestea foarte recente
events.the these-a very recent

This proposal also correctly predicts that always pre-nominal adjectives simply cannot
follow post-nominal demonstratives. They actually cannot survive if the noun is definite.
(27)

a.
b.

acest fost student

this former student
*studentul acesta fost
student.the former

On the whole, this analysis calls attention to the fact that things other than definiteness
and reference account for the post-nominal use of the demonstrative.
Despite its initial appeal, this analysis also has a number of undesirable consequences,
which are best avoided. Thus, the assumption that the post-nominal demonstrative is a
complement is problematic for theory and/ or for adjacency. It is not clear why the
demonstrative should precede possessive complements, as well as what thematic role the
demonstrative might have.
(28)

a.
b.

fiul acesta al lui Ion

son.the this of Ion.
*fiul lui Ion acesta
son.the of Ion this

The more serious problem, however, for probably any analysis which directly merges
demonstratives in post-nominal position is the presence of cardinals after post-nominal
demonstratives (in (30b)), even if cardinals cannot be post-nominal, as shown in (29b). Moreover
the cardinal + adjectives order cannot be reversed in post-demonstrative contexts, even if in prenominal position this order may be reversed:
(29)

a.
b.

(30)

a.

b.
(31)

a
b.
c.

multe fete
many girls
dou fete
two girls

fete multe
girls many
*fete dou
girls two

aceste dou probleme

these two problems
probleme-le acestea dou
problem/the these two
aceste dou importante probleme
these two important problems
problemele acestea dou importante
problems.the these-a two important
aceste importante dou probelme

these important two problems

problemele acestea importante dou
problems these-a important two

d.

No solution is offered for the contrast with Spanish Another problem is that it is unclear
how to get a common analysis for Spanish and Romanian post-nominal demonstratives in DPs
with post-nominal adjectives; notice that in Spanish too, the definite article is required with postnominal demonstratives; so the demonstrative should also be viewed as a complement, even if in
Spanish adjectives precede the demonstrative
(32)

a
b.
a
b.

il libro interessante este

este libro interessante
carte-a acest-a interesanta
acesta carte interesanta

4.3 Leaving aside studies devoted to Romanian, we should mention the standard opinion
in Bernstein (1993) or Bruge (2000) which analyze demonstrative determiners as phrasal
categories that merge in a functional specifier immediately below D.
4.5. Conclusions on phrasal status
The analysis that we defend (first adopted in Cornilescu (1992)) proposes to differentiate
the two demonstratives by means of their phrasal status (as also suggested by Dumitrescu and
Saltarelli (1996)). The short form should be analyzed as the head of the projection reserved for
demonstratives. For the purpose of this analysis we accept Bruges suggestion of a DemP
immediately below D. The long form will be analyzed as a phrasal category in the specifier of
this functional projection. All the properties that differentiate between the two demonstratives
follow from their different phrasal status, as will be shown below.
5. Adjacency as a Minimality Problem: Pied-Pipe Less Weight
As proposed, in agreement with its morphology, the heavy long form is a specifier in
the projection immediately below D, therefore immediately below the projection that hosts the
definite noun. The following configuration will result:
(33)

DP
|
D
3
D
[+def]

XP
3
DemP
X
[+def]
3
X0

NP
N0
[+def]

Note that the nominal head and the demonstrative agree in phi features and definiteness, so that
either of them could be attracted to D. It is at this point that point that the phrasal status of the
demonstrative is important, in deciding which of the two potential goals for the probe in D will
actually raise, the phrasal determiner or the nominal head. We claim that the definite noun is the
one that targets D by virtue of an economy principle of Pied Pipe Less Weight (cf. Stateva
(2002)). The X0, actually N 0, constituent is lighter, than the DemP, and the proper result is
obtained. More generally, this type of situation is the only one that correctly distinguishes
between N-Movement and NP-Movement inside the DP. Notice that unlike the adjective, the

demonstrative is inherently marked for definiteness, and should never be crossed by the noun
moving to D, unless the Noun moves for economy reasons as we proposed.
The analysis correctly predicts that adjectives, which always move as phrases, cannot
precede the demonstrative, even when they are definite:
(34)

*dragul acesta copil

dear.the this child

Another example illustrating the problem in (33) is offered by post-nominal ordinal

numerals. Ordinals are preceded by the genitival article AL, which incorporate the definite
article-l. The definite article may simply be an Agr morpheme, so that the ordinal DP may be
definite, as well as indefinite. If it is indefinite, it will be preceded by indefinite determiners, as in
(35). If the genitival article AL incorporates a definite feature the ordinal phrase is definite.
Suppose the noun is indefinite, then, the definite ordinal is attracted to SpecD as shown in (36)
(35)

a
b.

un al doilea (important) eec al constituiei europene

a AL second(important) failure of the European constitution
acest al doilea eec al constituiei europene
this AL second failure of the European Constitution
this second (important) failure of the European Constitution
[DP al doilea [XP tOrdP X [NP eec]]
AL second

(36)

failure

If the noun is definite, a configuration quite similar to (33) above arises. Pied Pipe Less Weight is
again at work, allowing the definite head noun to move to D past the phrasal ordinal, even if the
ordinal and the definite noun have the same features, and the ordinal is closer, apparently.
(37)

a.

DP
D
3

XP
3

[+def]

al
[+def]

[+def]

[+def]

OrdP
3
AP
doilea

X
3
X

NP
N
3

N
eec

D
(u)l
[+def]

b [DP [D eecul [XP al doilea X [NP t]]]]

Conclusions so far
1. The long demonstrative is phrasal, merging in a specifier below D.
2. The post-nominal demonstrative arises through local one step N-Movement, when both
the inherently definite demonstrative and the definite noun could potentially target D. The choice
of N-movement is dictated by economy, Pied-Pipe Less Weight.
3. This analysis correctly predicts the possibility of post-nominal cardinals after
demonstratives, since cardinals are pronominal but are lower than demonstratives.

4.The long form is licensed only in a configuration of concord (SHA) with a raising
nominal head. If there isnt N-movement, the short form moves as an XP to Spec D.
6. The pronominal demonstrative
In this section, we discuss why only the long demonstrative is used as a pronoun:
(38)

a.
b.

acest creion /*acest

this pencil /this
creionul acesta /acesta
pencil.the this-a /this-a

The ungrammaticality of the short form used as a pronoun may be due to the fact that the
short acest this cannot have an empty NP complement, or it may be due to the fact that when
combining with acest, the empty head is not correctly licensed.
It is plausible to treat the data in () as a matter of head-complement selection, stating the
following obvious generalization:
(39)

The short demonstrative acest selects a lexical NP.

In order to understand why the short form does not select an empty complement, we will
sketch a theory of empty nouns in Romanian, largely following Panagiotidis (2003), who
essentially proposes the following:
1. Empty nouns differ from full or lexical nouns only in as much as they lack descriptive
features; they are bundles of grammatical features (therefore, functional elements). Empty nouns
may be null (eN or overt, sometimes appearing in the same context.
(40)

This one/ eN is tepid.

2. Empty Ns whether overt or null, are listed in the lexicon and appear in DPs containing
at least D and N. The overt -features on the D or on adjectives are the result of agreement with
the empty head noun.
(41)

a
b

these eN
these ones

them
*them ones

3. Empty nouns are grammatical elements. Closed lexical categories (i.e., grammatical Ns
or Vs) can only have a limited number of members. There are only as many non-concept denoting
lexical items as there are combinations of formal features. As Carstens (2000) shows, agreement
is one of the effects of feature checking of uninterpretable features by interpretable ones. The
features of the empty nominal categories are interpretable (valued) and are checked in the same
manner as the features of their overt counterparts.
If empty nouns are listed in the lexicon they should be viewed as heads N0 which
regularly project. Moreover, in Romanian there is good evidence that the empty category is a
nominal head. Thus, in (29b), the empty category clearly stands for the N0 head restaurare,
restoring which licenses the genitival complement. The structure of the relevant DP is thus: [ DP
cea [NP [eN] i mai urgent a universitii]
(42)

a.
b.

[Lui Ion i place rochia mea, I

ar eu o prefer] pe cea noua a Mariei.
Ion likes my dress,
while I prefer] pe CEL [eN] AL Marys.
Ei au discutat de restaurarea rapid a centrului istoric, iar noi am vorbit
They have talked about restoring.the fast of center historical, and we talked

de cea i mai necesar a universitii.

about that eN even more necessary of the university

If it is true that the empty noun must be licensed as an N0 and that it must be licensed by
an agree(ment) relation with a Determiner, then the long demonstrative, which is itself licensed in
a configuration of specifier head agreement with an N0 category will be the form that will be
used as a pronoun.
The short form on the other hand does not interact with an N0 category. To ensure the
complementarity of the two forms is to simply analyze the short form acest as a head, whose
lexical complement should bean over NP. Acest interacts with its phrasal NP complement by
Agree or if other constituents intervene between the demonstrative and the NP, there will be a
chain of Agree relations.
(43)

aceti trei foti demnitari

these three former officials

If the short form acest were and XP, pro or generally, eN would be correctly licensed.
However, if acest merges as a higher head, below D or in D, Agree is not sufficient to license the
empty nominal head. Specifier head agreement does not obtain so that the empty nominal e N or
pro remains unlicensed. This is the proposed explanation for the generalization in (39).
Conclusion on the phrasal status and on the pronominal use
1. Acest is a head generated right below D or in D checking an inherent definite feature.
Acest is licensed by Agree or a chain of Agree relations searching for an overt lexical noun, in
order to value its un-interpretable features. Since acest cannot have a non-lexical complement,
it cannot function as a pronoun.
2. Acest+a is licensed through specifier-head agreement with a (definite) nominal head
N0 on its way to D; the nominal head may be lexical (overt) or empty. As a consequence, the long
form acesta is either post-nominal or pronominal in Romanian.
7. Post-nominal vs. pre-nominal demonstratives, a functional view
In this section we mention some results obtained in a functional analysis of Romanian
demonstratives, to prepare the ground for the contrast between Romanian and Spanish.
These results are important in as much as what counts in the functioning of the
demonstrative is its position with respect to the noun, rather than the contrast between the
demonstratives of proximity and distance. Essentially, there is an asymmetry between the prenominal and the post-nominal demonstrative in Romanian from the point of view of information
packaging. The pre-nominal demonstrative behaves more like a topic and it is frequently used
anaphorically. The post-nominal demonstrative, in contrast, exhibits focus properties.
7.1 A functional perspective Let is briefly evoke the conclusions reached by Manoliu
Manea (1998) on the basis of a pragmatic corpus study.
According to Manoliu Manea (1998, the post-nominal demonstratives are markers of
talk- interaction, which explains the preference for post-position in spoken registers; the prenominal demonstratives are devices of text- cohesion. A similar proposal had been put forth by
Tasmowski (), who suggests that preposed demonstratives are thematic and connective, whereas
the post-posed demonstratives are rhematic.
(i) Thus, by using the post-nominal demonstrative, the S asserts the intent of appealing to
the Hs co-operation, and therefore S activates the implicature of merging the world of
enunciation with the text-world. The postnominal demonstratives take the space / time of the
enunciation as the point of origin of the presentation. There is always a degree of indexicality. In
other words, postposed demonstratives are signals of an overt intention of asking the H to identify

the referent as a foregrounded entity. When the reference is to an object present , the D is postposed, never pre-posed:
The proximity demonstrative conveys a close-up perspective. S intends to make the
addressee see or imagine the objects in question as taking place in front of him.
While any postnominal demonstartive signals a merger of the text-world with the enunciation
world, the distal demonstrative suggests some form of remoteness ( psychological distance,
disapproval, etc.)
(44)
(45)

Da-mi cartea asta / ??? aceast carte .

Give-mi book.the.that-a / this book
Spune, tata, cine este femeia aceea
Tell (us), father who is woman.the that-a

(ii)The prenominal demonstratives have the function of giving instructions for the
identification of the referents by taking the text world as the origin. They refer to the tale-world,
to the world created by the previous text (anaphoric use) or to what follows (cataphoric use). It is
for this reason that pre-nominal demonstratives cannot function as indexicals, but only as devices
of text cohesion.
(46)

Nu puteau fi martori la acel eveniment oprirea unui accelerat la dorinta efului lor.
The couldnt witness that eventthe stopping of a fast train at their bosss wish

We retain that post-nominal demonstratives are markers of talk- interaction which

foreground the referent. Post-nominal demonstrative focus on the referent; the pre-nominal
demonstratives are devices of text- cohesion, treating the referent as a discourse given topic.
7.2 Current tests used for the identification of focus confirm the difference between the
two pre-nominal /post-nominal demonstratives with respect to the topic/ focus contrast. The prenominal demonstrative behaves more like a topic, for instance, it cannot be contrastively stressed,
especially when there is an adjective between the demonstrative and the noun. In contrast, several
authors agree that the Romanian post-nominal demonstrative occupies a Focus position. Indeed,
post-nominal demonstrative always bear nuclear stress and can easily be contrasted. Here are
examples that prove this point:
(47)

a.
b.
c.
d.

?*acest copil, nu acela

this child, not that (one)
copilul acesta , nu acela
child.the-this, not that (one)
*aceast interesant carte, nu aceea
this interesting book, not that one
cartea aceasta interesant, nu aceea
book-the this interesting, not that one

It seems reasonable to conclude that the postnominal demonstrative occupies a Focus

position inside the DP, a conclusion
8. On the Romanian- Spanish Contrast
Bernstein (2001) argues that Romance languages may express focus at the right periphery
of the DP; she proposes that the post- nominal position of the demonstrative is derived by
leftward XP movement of the noun phrase past the demonstrative. The XP movement she
discusses is DP internal. She notices that in Spanish the post-nominal demonstrative is easily
focused , as in (49b). At the same time, only the post-nominal demonstrative may be contrastively
used, as in (50). The focus investigated by Bernstein (2001) is nuclear, not contrastive, therefore,

stress on the DP final element(s), with no pause. Below we present Bernsteins data, paralleled by
Romanian data.
(48)

a
b

(49)

(50)

a.
b.

este libro interesante

this interesting book
el libro interesante este
the book interesting this
este libro interesante
aceast carte interesant
this interesting book
el libro interesante este
the book interesting this
cartea aceasta interesnt
book.the this interesting
el libre interesnte este, no aquel
the book interesting this, not that
cartea aceasta de poveti, nu aceea
book.the this of tales, not that

Bernstein also shows the parallel use of other constituents of the nominal phrase which may
appear in this focus position: possessives, indefinites:
(51)

a
b

il mio libro importante

il libro importante mio

In Bernsteinss analysis of the post-nominal demonstrative, the NP, containing all

adjectives moves over the demonstrative as shown in (52):
(52)

el [XP libroi interesante ti] k este [XP t] k

Suppose that the nominal left periphery contains the same projections as the clausal
periphery, i.e. a FocP and Topic Ps sandwiched between a lower agreement determiner (D 1Agr)
and a higher referential determiner (D2P).
Let us assume that the post-nominal demonstrative merges in the specifier of the Focus P
in both languages, as suggested by Bernstein for Spanish. Spanish and Romanian crucially differ
in that in Romanian, the demonstrative needs to be adjacent to the definite noun, so that lower
functional categories, such as the cardinal and ordinal numerals, as well as lexical categories like
adjectives or genitives all follow the demonstrative.
We claim that the difference between the two languages easily follows from the different
properties of the post-nominal demonstratives. In Romanian, the post-nominal demonstrative is
licensed by specifier head agreement with a nominal head. Therefore head movement (N 0Movement) is required for the post-nominal demonstrative. In contrast, Spanish uses the same
form pre-nominally and post-nominally, and there is no need of N-Movement as distinct from NP
movement. NP-Movement past a demonstrative is an option in Spanish, but not in Romanian.
Hence the difference in examples like (49, 50) above. Below we sketch the derivation for these
examples. Consider Romanian first.
(53)

cartea aceasta interesant

(54)

NP
3
AP
NP
3
N
D
interesant
carte
a

NP
3
tNP

AP
3

A
3

NP

A
carte+a interesant
c.

FocP
3
Foc
3

DemP
Foc

NP
3
AP
3

aceasta
d

[+foc]

t NP
A
interesant

NP
carte-a

DP
3

N0

D0
1
D0

D
3
FocP
3
DemP
Foc
3
Foc

NP
3
AP

cartea

[+def]

aceasta [+foc]

NP
N0
tN0

tNP
A
A0
interesant

The AP merges as an adjunct of the NP. As explained above, the noun may not reach the
focus head and may not generally undergo head movement until it has moved to the left of the
adjective, since otherwise it would be blocked by the AP adjoined to it. We have adopted
Barbiers (1995)s suggestion that the post-nominal order of adjectival modifiers results from the
movement of the NP to the Spec AP position, as shown in (54b). This movement is an
interpretative need, according to Barbiers (1995). In his view, the configuration created by this
movement allows the adjective to express the modification (binary) relation, established by the
adjective between the NP and the NP-trace. The adjunction configuration is not interpretable as a
relation.

The definite Noun reaches the Focus head licensing the long demonstrative by specifierhead agreement and is then attracted to the D position. This derivation results in the adjacency of
the definite noun and the focused demonstrative, as required.
Spanish does not show adjacency effects, the demonstrative shows up at the right edge of
the DP, since the whole NP undergoes leftward movement past the demonstrative in Focus as
shown below.
(55).

a
DemP

FocP
3
Foc
3
Foc0

NP
3

AP
3

A
A0
interessante

NP
N0
[+Foc] libro

este

tNP

b.
WP
3
W
3

NP
3
AP
3
NP
N
libro
c.

tNP

W0

AP
A
interessante

FocP
3
DemP
Foc
3
Foc
tNP
este
[+Foc]

DP
D
3
D0

AP
3

il

WP
3
NP
W
tNP W0

NP

DemP

N
libro

A
interesante

este

FocP
3
Foc
3
Foc
[+Foc]

tNP

Conclusions on the Romanian-Spanish contrast

The difference between the two languages must be related to their morphology (suffixal
definite article in Romanian) and special licensing conditions for the long post-nominal
demonstrative of Romanian. The difference amounts to N-Raising in Romanian versus NP
Raising in Spanish.
Acknowlwdgements:
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS
UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0959.

References:
Barbiers Stig (1995) On the Syntax of Interpretation, OLT dissertation
Bernstein Judy. 1993. Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structures Across Romance, CUNY
dissertation.
Bernstein Judy.2001 Focusing the right way in Romance Determiner phrases, Probus
Brug Laura.2000. Categorie funzionali del nome nelle lingue romanze, Milano: Cisalpino
Carstons Vick.2000
Campos Hector. 2005. Noun Modification, Pseudo-Articles, and Last Resort Operations in
Arvantovlaxika and in Romanian, Lingua 11: 311-347
Cinque Guglielmo. 2002 On Greenbergs Universal Twenty, University of Venice
Working Papers in Linguistics, 12. 1: 1-28
Coene, Martine. 1999. Definite Null Nominals in Romanian and Spanish. Doctoral
dissertation, Antwerpen
Cornilescu Alexandra. 1992 Remarks on the Determiner System of Romanian: The
Demonstratives, al and cel, Probus, 189-260.
Dobrovie-Sorin. 1987. A propos de la structure du groupe nominale en roumain,
Rivista
di Gramatica Generativa 12, 123-152
Dimitrova-Vulchanova Mila and Giusti Giuliana. 1998. Fragments of Balkan Nominal
Structure, Alexiadou Artemis and Chris Wilder (ed) Possessors and Movement in the
Determiner Phrase Amsterdam: Benjamins, 333-361
Dumitrescu Domnita & Mario Saltarelli. 1996
Giusti Giuliana.1997.The Categorial Status of Determinersin Haegeman, L. (ed) The New
Comparatove Syntax, London: Longman
Grosu Alexander.1988. On the Distribution of Genitive Phrases in Romanian, Linguistics 26:
931-949.
Herdan Simona, 2004 Floating Quantifiers in Romanian
Kayne Richard.1994. The Anti Symmetry of Syntax, Cambridge MA: MIT Press:
Stateva Penka. 2002. Possessive Clitics and the Structure of Nominal Expressions, Lingua
Manoliu-Manea Maria. 1997
Demonstratives, story-world and talk-interaction
Panagiotidis Phoevos. 2003 Empty Nouns in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21,
381-432