1.5. Major claims

In this section, we offer a summary of the major claims put forth in this book; some comments and conclusions follow in chapter 6.

Let us first consider theoretical claims of a general nature. We suggest that formal features are of two kinds. (i) Non-selectional FFs, which are checked as an instance of the operation Agree (cf. Chomsky 1998), and for which identity (i.e., feature matching) and closest c-command are necessary and sufficient; in this case, feature-checking does not involve movement and is less local. (ii) Selectional FFs, which are checked as an instance of the operation Move (cf. Chomsky 1988), which presupposes Agree and second Merge; in this case, feature-checking obligatorily involves movement and is strictly local, in that it requires a Spec-Head or head-adjunction relationship. Whether FFs are selectional or non-selectional is an option parametrized across languages, with one exception. Following Chomsky (1998), we assume the EPP feature to be universally selectional. However, we recognize some cross-linguistic flexibility and propose that the strict locality configuration in which this selectional feature is checked is parametrized, depending on whether the respective language has a D-type or a V-type EPP FF. Specifically, the EPP FF on I° requires checking in a Spec-Head relationship in D-type EPP languages, and a head-adjunction relationship in V-type EPP languages.

Contrary to Minimalist assumptions, we show that not all instances of Spell-Out movement are feature driven. However, we assume all feature-driven movement to be overt and obligatory.

Consider next the claims made for Romanian. The empirical data shows Romanian to be a V-type EPP language; consequently, in this language,
Spec, IP is not the canonical subject position, and, in fact, the language lacks a unique subject position. Structural Case is assigned in Merge positions and Romanian NPs need not move from their base-generated position for licensing purposes.

Formal features such as [+ wh] and [+ focus] are realized syncretically (i.e., parasitically) on I°, rather than on C° or on independent heads projecting their own structure, and XPs attracted for feature-checking will merge as Spec, IP. The operators in Spec, IP either create anaphoric or quantificational chains, depending on the presence or absence of resumptive clitics, respectively. Multiple wh-movement proceeds in a crossing-paths manner with unordered tucking-in under Spec, IP. While contrastive focus is realized as a formal feature on I°, it is realized as a phonological feature (P-feature) on the lexical item. More specifically, contrastively focused phrases in Romanian are not marked with a [+ focus] feature from within the lexicon, but marked later with a [+ focus] P-feature (hence the prosodic stress requirement which identifies a constituent as contrastively focused). Given that contrastive focus is a representational property of phonosyntax in Romanian, the focused phrase is optionally pronounced in Spec,IP or in its base-generated position.

Romanian allows for two types of scrambling, both of which are semantically restricted and both of which represent non-feature driven movement: vP-scrambling (i.e., de-focusing), which has A-movement properties, and IP-scrambling (i.e., topicalization), which has A-bar movement properties. While scrambling is not obligatory, it is nevertheless indicative of the presence of pragmatic domains in the Romanian clause structure.