Is there a dative alternation in Romanian?
Remarks on the cross-categorial variation of datives in ditransitive constructions
Against recent claims that Romance languages lack a genuine dative alternation since they lack a genuine Prepositional Dative Construction (e.g., Pineda 2012), we bring evidence that, in Romanian, even in Recipient ditransitive constructions, datives manifest either DP or PP properties. In order to establish this result, we examine both the (internal) structure of the Romanian inflectional dative, and the prepositional dative, marked by the preposition la “at”/“to” and show that both forms require a ‘dual categorial analysis’, in order to allow licensing of their case and person features. While the default interpretation of datives in Recipient ditransitive constructions is that of DPs (whence the possibility of clitic doubling (CD)), there is a class of contexts (e.g., double datives, featuring a possessive dative and a Goal/Recipient dative), where the Recipient must be projected as a PP, since otherwise it cannot be licensed. The dual categorization of the Recipient as a DP/PP proves the existence of a genuine dative alternation in Romanian.
Article outline
- 1.Background and aim
- 1.1The aim of the chapter
- 1.2Background, properties of Romanian ditransitives
- 2.The structure of Romanian dative phrases
- 2.1Inflectional and prepositional marking
- 2.2Sensitivity to the animacy hierarchy
- 2.3The thematic range of datives in ditransitive constructions
- 2.4The internal structure of dative vs accusative la
- Why is the clitic possible and sometimes required?
- Conclusions
- 2.4The internal structure of the inflectional dative phrase
- 3.On the dual categorial status of datives in ditransitive constructions
- 3.1Aim of the section, framework of the analysis
- 3.2Multiple datives
- 3.3Narrow (asymmetric) scope
- 3.4The interference with Differential Object Marking (DOM)
- 3.5Non-configurational semantic effects of the Romanian dative alternation
- 4.Conclusions
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (20)
Beavers, John
2011 On affectedness.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beavers, John & Chiyo Nishida
2010 The Spanish dative alternation revisited. In
Sonia Colina (ed.),
Romance linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 217–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Belletti, Adriana
2005 Extended doubling and the VP periphery.
Probus 17(1). 1–35.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2020 Ditransitive constructions with DOM-ed direct objects in Romanian. In
Anna Pineda &
Jaume Mateu (eds.),
Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 117–142. Berlin: Language Science Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cornilescu, Alexandra, Anca Dinu & Alina Tigău
2017 Romanian dative configurations: Ditransitive verbs, a tentative analysis.
Revue roumaine de linguistique 62(2). 157–178.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cuervo, Cristina
2003 Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deal Amy Rose
2013 Possessor raising.
Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diaconescu, Constanţa Rodica & María Luisa Rivero
2007 An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian.
Probus 19(2). 209–233.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dogget, Teal
2004 All things being unequal: Locality in movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harley, Heidi
2002 Possession and the DOC. In
Pierre Pica &
Johan Rooryck (eds.),
Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Volume 2. 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Iorga, Ana
2013 O tipologie a dativului românesc. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kayne, Richard
1984 Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero
2017 Historical changes in Basque dative alternations: Evidence for a P-based (neo)derivational analysis.
Glossa 2(1). 1–39.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pineda, Anna
2012 Double object constructions and dative/accusative alternations in Spanish and Catalan: A unified account.
Borealis 2(1). 57–115.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylkkänen, Liina
2002 Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008 Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Richards, Mark
2008 Defective agree, case alternation, and the prominence of person.
Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86. 137–161.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tigău, Alina
2011 Syntax and interpretation of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages with an emphasis on Romanian, German, Dutch and English. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Tigău, Alina
2023.
Subject-Object binding dependencies in Romanian.
Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) 9
► pp. 208 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.