“Diacronia” bibliometric database (BDD)
Title:

Considerații privind tratarea complementului secundar în GALR

Author:
Publication: Dacoromania. Serie nouă, XV (1), p. 48
p-ISSN:1582-4438
Publisher:Editura Academiei
Place:Cluj-Napoca
Year:
Abstract:Our study analyses the manner of conceptualising and of describing the secondary object (SO) in the latest edition of Romanian Grammar (GALR 2005, 2008). To that effect, the five criteria presented by the academic treatise for the purpose of differentiating the SO from the direct object (DO) are considered both from the perspective of their consistency and from the perspective of the current tendencies in the dynamics of the Romanian language. With respect to consistency, the last three of the five criteria advanced by the GALR – the impossibility of coordination between the SO and the DO, the existence of a different grid of thematic roles and the incompatibility between the SO and the indirect object (IO) – are discarded as non-conclusive in the process of carrying out an efficient separation between the SO and the DO. Furthermore, we note the fact that, from the list of the 12 ditransitive verbs provided by the GALR (a anunţa „to announce”, a asculta „to listen”, a convinge „to convince”, a dăscăli „to teach”, a examina „to examine”, a informa „to inform”, a învăţa „to learn”, a ruga „to ask”, a sfătui „to advise”, a vesti „to state”, a traversa „to traverse”, a trece „to pass”), some have lost this trait in the current stage of evolution of the Romanian language. On the other hand, when the SO indicates an object co-referential to a 3rd person singular feminine clitic, in the common use of the Romanian language one can observe the tendency of constructing the SO with pe and, therefore, of substituting/ doubling it by the corresponding clitic (o), which results in these properties no longer functioning as distinctive traits of the DO in relation to the SO. In conclusion, none of the five criteria suggested by the GALR works as a diagnostic test in order to dissociate between the two functions (DO and SO). However, we think that this fact should not lead to the elimination of the SO function from the Romanian grammar, but merely to a more rigorous formalisation of the thematic roles characteristic to the SO and the DO. In our opinion, only such an operation shall be able to support a criterion which should be sufficiently solid to differentiate between the two syntactic functions.
Language: Romanian
Links:  

Citations to this publication: 1

1Elena Adela DrăguțoiuCâteva observații privind unicitatea în sintaxăDR, s.n., XIX (2), 141-1522014pdf
html

References in this publication: 7

338Valeria Guțu Romalo (coord.)GALR
Gramatica limbii române. I. Cuvântul; II. Enunțul
Editura Academiei2005; 2008
113Gabriela Pană DindeleganElemente de gramatică
Dificultăţi, controverse, noi interpretări
Humanitas Educaţional2003
109D. D. DrașoveanuTeze și antiteze în sintaxa limbii româneClusium1997
42Gabriela Pană DindeleganSintaxa limbii române
Partea I: Sintaxa grupului verbal
Tipografia Universității din București; Editura Aula1976; 1999
33Gabriela Pană DindeleganSintaxa transformațională a grupului verbal în limba românăEditura Academiei1974
3Gabriela Pană DindeleganSubcategorizarea verbului în funcție de obiectul direct în gramatica transformațională a limbii româneSCL, XXI (4), 4331970
4Laura VasiliuSome aspects of the grammar of the verb phrase with special reference to prepositional constructionsRRL, XII (4), 3411967

The citations/references list is based on indexed publications only, and may therefore be incomplete.
For any and all inquiries related to the database, please contact us at [Please enable javascript to view.].

Preview: