After briefly presenting the distribution of the Romanian genitival agreeing particle al and the most important results of the previous research, I compare three recent analyses of al that are based on the idea that al is essentially a genitive marker and make use of a K (Case) projection: (I) al is a complex of functional heads (K-P+Agr) in the extended projection of the possessee; (II) al is a K head that forms a constituent with the genitive DP; (III) al is an Agr morpheme projected at PF by a genitival K head that forms a constituent with the genitive. I first compare analysis (I) with analyses (II)-(III) and conclude that analysis (I), although it offers a straightforward explanation for agreement, is contradicted by some distributional facts which indicate that al and the genitive form a constituent. Moreover, it needs an important modification in order to account for the fact that al-genitives can appear outside DPs, in predicative position. Analyses (II) and (III), in which al forms a constituent with the genitive, do not have these empirical problems, but require some modifications of the current minimalist assumptions about structural case in order to deal with the alternation between al and prepositional genitives. I then compare analyses (II) and (III) and I conclude that (II) is preferable because it can account for the loss of agreement of al in some varieties of Romanian.
Cuvinte-cheie:
genitive, possessors, case (case markers, structural case), agreement (possessor agreement)
Lista citărilor/referințelor nu cuprinde decît texte prezente în baza de date, nefiind deci exhaustivă. Pentru trimiterea de texte, semnalarea oricăror greșeli, și eventualul refuz ca „Diacronia” să facă publice textele, vă rugăm să folosiți adresa de email [Please enable javascript to view.].
pdf 
html 
