3.2.1. VSO and extraction from clausal objects

The fact that, in Romanian, structural Case is erased in Merge positions, does not necessarily imply that subject noun phrases cannot be right-adjoined in this language. However uneconomical, there is in principle the theoretical possibility that VSO word orders involve subject adjunction, with subsequent object adjunction, as in (6).

Movement violations notwithstanding, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that vacuous rightward movement of the type in (6) is permitted.

Extraction phenomena, however, proves (6) to be untenable. Consider the example in (7), in which a wh-phrase has been felicitously extracted out of the embedded object CP in a VSO configuration.

(7)     Cu     cine_i   ţi-a                               spus   Victor   [că   vine    t_i  Mihai]?        

          With   who_i  CL.2SG.DAT-AUX.3SG    said    Victor   [that comes t_i Mihai]

          ‘With whom did Victor tell you that Mihai was coming?’

Ross (1967) argues that rightward movements create islands (i.e., constituents out of which no extraction is possible) and later Cinque (1990) argues that XPs which are not in a position locally selected by a [+V] category are always barriers. This much is more or less standard and we adopt it as such. If in Romanian the clausal object in VSO structures undergoes movement to a right-adjoined position, as in (6), we would expect extraction out of the clausal direct object to be ruled out. The grammaticality of (7) indicates that the sentential direct object occupies its Merge position and has not undergone dislocation. Consequently, the postverbal subject, which precedes the clausal object, cannot have been right-adjoined, but resides in Spec,vP.

Let us consider some further examples. In (8b) and (9b-c), extraction out of the clausal direct objects is again fully grammatical, as a result of the fact that the respective CPs are locally selected by a lexical verb.

(8)     a.  Ion         a               spus   [că            s-a                   purtat                             Ion       AUX.3SG           said      [that                        REFL-AUX.3SG         behaved   

              ca           un      domn         Victor].    

              like         a        gentleman  Victor]

              ‘Ion said [that  Victor had behaved like a gentleman].’

          b.  Cum_i        a               spus   Ion            [că     s-a         

              how_i       AUX.3SG    said    John          [that   REFL-AUX.3SG      

              purtat               t_i       Victor] ?            

              behaved           t_i      Victor]

              ‘How did Ion say Victor had behaved?’

(9)     a.  Erau       capabili      [ să    spună        [că     l-au                     

              were       capable      [SUBJ say            [that   CL.3SG.ACC.M-AUX.3PL

              văzut      pe             Mihai în              parc]

              seen          PE             Mihai in              park ]]

  ‘They were capable of saying they had seen Mihai in the park.’

          b.  Pe        cine_i   erau        capabili   [să       spună [că     au                                      PE         who_i     were     capable                          [SUBJ        say     [that       AUX.3PL

              văzut    t_i        în            parc]

              seen       t_i        in            park ]]

              ‘Whom were they capable of saying they had seen in the park?’

          c.  Unde_i   erau   capabili   [să          spună   [că     l-au     

               Where_i were  capable   [SUBJ      say       [that   CL.3SG.ACC.M-AUX.3PL      văzut    pe         Mihai     t_i]

               seen     PE      Mihai      t_i ]]

              ‘Where were they capable of saying they had seen Mihai ?’

In (9b-c) extraction of either an argument (9b) or and adjunct (9c) proceeds across two embedded clauses. In view of their failure to represent islands for movement, the embedded clauses have to be locally selected by the verb and cannot have undergone right-adjunction.

There are, however, examples of right-adjoined clauses in Romanian and, in this case, extraction out of the respective clauses is ungrammatical, as expected. Consider the examples in (10) and (11).

(10)    a.  Păşea            liniştit    băiatul  [de cîte ori      venea             acasă ].

              stepped.3SG    calmly  boy-the [whenever      came.3SG       home]

              ‘The boy would walk calmly whenever he came home.’

          b.  *Unde_i păşea             liniştit    băiatul     [de cîte ori      venea        t_i ].

              where_i  stepped.3SG    calmly  boy-the   [whenever      came.3SG  t_i]

              ‘* Where_i would the boy walk calmly whenever he came t_i ?’

(11)    a.  Erau              capabili [să       mintă    [fără         să           le                            were.3PL                       capable                        [SUBJ          lie    [without            SUBJ      CL.3PL.ACC                pese            de asta ]].

              care        of this]]

              ‘They were capable of lying without caring about it.’

          b.  *De ce_i   erau             capabili [să        mintă [fără              să  

                of what_i   were.3PL     capable [SUBJ    lie      [without         SUBJ

                le                   pese     t_i ]?

                CL.3PL.ACC      care     t_i ]

              ‘* About what_i were they capable of lying without caring t_i ?’

In (10b) and (11b), the clausal objects are adjuncts (i.e., VP-adjoined) rather than arguments, and, consequently, create islands for movement since they are not in a local relationship with the verb.

The extraction facts presented above provide evidence that in VSO structures, the subject NP has not right-adjoined to the VP, since the clausal direct object is in its base-generated position.