Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

62 CARMEN DOBROVIE-SORINOne may wonder whether the present account is not completely circular forRomanian: we postulate that the [Agr, e] chain is pronominal in ca subjunctives(see (36)) and anaphoric in sa subjunctives, but there does not seem to be anyempirical argument in favour of this analysis. This is indeed true if we take intoaccount only (36), that is, if we consider the obviation problem in isolation. Butthe obviation problem cannot be understood independently of control. And obligatorycontrol gives us an empirical argument in favor of the proposed analysisof obviation: the cases of obligatory control show that an anaphoric relation isprecluded in ca subjunctives, so we cannot assume that (36) is a case ofanaphoric binding.6.4. The bare phrase structure of Balkan subjunctivesAlthough the X'-theoretic representation of subjunctives sketched in section 5.2above is able to capture the empirical data, it is stipulative and too powerful. Itrelies on a restructuring rule, which undoes part of the derivation, and it stipulatesan adjacency constraint, which has no clear status in the syntax.The minimalist framework, and more precisely the bare phrase structure(BPS) of Chomsky (1994) allows a restatement of the core hypothesis in moreprincipled terms. BPS does not require that a given X 1 category project a maximalcategory. 24 Hence, the lack of Spec positions for functional projections,which was stipulative and against the spirit of GB, is now permitted by the theoryitself. It is furthermore possible to dispense with the restructuring rule if weassume that functional X categories need not first merge with a complement, butmay instead merge with each other, an operation that will be referred to as Headto-HeadMerge. Although Head-to-Head Merge is not explored by currentanalyses, it is a possibility opened up by minimalist principles. This is not tosay that it has no theory-internal problems, some of which will be brieflyadressed below.The first question is whether Head Merge qualifies as substitution or as adjunction.It is difficult to give the asnwer, because under current assumptionsthere are two unrelated properties that distinguish between adjunction andsubstitution:(38) a. If a category A has selectional features for a category B, set-Merge(Merge by substitution) applies and A projects. Otherwise pair-Merge(Merge by adjunction) applies.b. A category that adjoins to another category does not change its barlevel. A category that substitutes to another category changes its barlevel.Although these two definitions are implicitely assumed to correlate with eachother, such a correlation does not follow from any principle. We therefore expectto find cases of Merge that qualify as both substitution and adjunction, a contradictionin terms. The Head Merge of functional categories that we would like topropose is a case in point. Functional categories such as Comp, Neg, and tense