No description available.

This study explores three syntactic issues in the Romanian DP: the cliticization of the definite article, the syntactic position of postnominal APs, and the syntactic properties and position of cel. / First, I show that the affixation of the definite article can be derived by syntactic head movement of the host element to D0. The distributional asymmetries among adjectives with respect to the definite article are accounted for by hypothesizing that they occur in two structurally distinct positions. Adjectives that surface prenominally are heads in the extended nominal projection; while adjectives that surface postnominally are maximal projections. I show that prenominal adjectives (a) block head-movement of the noun to D 0, (b) bypass the same elements as the noun, and (c) are blocked by the same element as the noun. / In chapter 3, I claim that APs surfacing between the noun and its complement are generated to the left of N; and APs that follow the complement of the noun are generated to the right. The postnominal surface position of the former APs is derived by leftward noun head-movement as opposed to remnant phrasal-movement. The evidence hinges on the relative scope among APs. I show that the symmetric approach, supported here, generates all and only attested word-order---scope pairings; while antisymmetry generates additional, unattested pairs. / Finally, I account for the asymmetric distribution of prenominal versus postnominal cel relative to the definite suffix. In previous literature, cel was equated with D0. Conversely, I claim that cel heads a modifier phrase, say celP. I show that prenominal celP has the same syntactic distribution and properties as demonstratives, including the ability to license a covert definite D0; while postnominal celP, like all postnominal modifiers, lacks this property. / This study provides a guide to the structure and movements in the Romanian DP, from its lower domain, the base position of N, up to the DP domain. Throughout, this work, I argue that several empirical generalizations on syntactic distribution are best accounted for by head-movement and the Head Movement Constraint. The evidence I produce comes from morpho-syntax (e.g. cliticization), semantics (e.g. scope interpretation) and plain linear word-order.